moonspinner55 James Otis Kaler's book becomes too-glossy Walt Disney saga of a spotless, overly-polite orphan boy from a rural town who runs away from his uncle's farm and attaches himself to a traveling circus. He makes himself useful as a concessions salesman before joining the horse-riders in the center ring, garnering friends for the first time (some of whom only see dollar signs in the lad's untapped potential). Disney skimps a bit on the big top fun while loading up the plot with various characters, including a hateful uncle who manages a complete change of heart by the finale (what is the message of this movie...that success is the best revenge, particularly if you're an orphan?). We do get clowns and a parade, plus a chimp who reacts to everything like a human would; however, the central figure is played by the leaden Kevin Corcoran, a Disney favorite, who can barely read a line. The youngster has a consistent look of bewilderment on his face and is generally unable to carry the more dramatic scenes proposed by the tale (if you do watch, see if you can count how many times Corcoran stumbles over the name "Mr. Tupper"). There's a regrettable moment wherein the audience is made to think an animal is killed by a hunter's rifle, while the subplot about Toby Tyler's financial worth is never quite resolved. A few scenes of color and merriment, but the elements of the story (basic as they are) are bungled. *1/2 from ****

johnstonjames come on everybody! is everyone blind or something? KEVIN CORCORAN DOES HIS OWN STUNT WORK HERE. so do the other two children. i have read many reviews like Leonard Maltin's and even looked at the wikipedia for this film and nobody points this obvious fact out. i mean what a thing to leave out. if you don't at least mention this you are not giving Kevin Corcoran the true credit he deserves for his outstanding performance. if one more person writes a review of this film without mentioning this i'm gonna scream "foul"! you might really like the film but if you don't mention this you are being too forgetful, unobservant, and unfair.hopefully one day this minor children's classic will get the good treatment it so richly earns and deserves. it is definitely one of Disney's very best from the studio's golden age. it is very solid film making and even though there might be better films, few films have achieved this kind of neat and tidy perfection. every little element works beautifully.not to mention the film is very cute with an abundance of simple heart. i was surprised to find out the book was so unpleasant. i read 'Toby Tyler' when i was about nine yrs old but i don't seem to remember anything about the book. i certainly didn't remember it was that dark. but i'll take that reviewers word for it. the books themselves are usually darker and grittier than their Disney film adaptations which tend to be more wholesome. i always remembered the film better because i saw the film a few times first. i remember loving the film but not having much of an opinion about the book. probably because i was afraid of it or something.besides an amazing performance by the film's lead, Kevin Corcoran, the film also highlights the wonderful Henry Calvin and Gene Sheldon, two of my favorite Disney performers. they were both cute and funny when teamed up as Laurel and Hardy look alikes for 'Babes in Toyland', but their performances here resonate more warmth and realistic human appeal. especially Calvin, who i think should have been nominated for this. but Disney films were not taken seriously in the "actor" categories back then. Kevin Corcoran should have at least been given a special "outstanding juvenile performance" award.it's also fun to see veteran Disney Composer/conductor Oliver Wallace in a cameo role as the circus band leader.love the heck out of this film. i first liked it because of the cute monkey 'Mr. Stubbs', but now i appreciate so much more about it's timeless appeal and cheery message. this is one of those Disney "feel good" movies that always reminds me why i am such a "Disney groupie, fanatic".

dbdumonteil This Disney production was released at about the same time as "Pollyanna".Both heroes have problems with their families: Pollyanna is taken in by her auntie Polly Harrington a good but proud woman who thinks that money can buy everything;Toby has to escape from the farm where he lives with his uncle and his aunt -who are far from being as rich as Polly but who are finally good people-.The subtitles reads "ten weeks with a circus" and that's exactly what it is.Toby takes refuge in a circus where he will meet people from a world he does not know:he becomes good friend with Mr Tibbs ,the chimp and falls in love with the beautiful rider;but his job is to sell peanuts,and Monsieur Ajax,Mademoiselle Jeannette's partner ,always laughs at him.Toby's dream is to become part of the show but he stands no chance till....A nice memory from your childhood from long ago.

Hans C. Frederick I've mentioned elsewhere that Disney's adaptations of famous works sometimes avoid the dark and dreary messages of the original works.He wished,it seems,to provide wholesome family entertainment.IN this regard,he succeeded.But,after seeing this film,as I did when it first came out,I was horrified when I got around to reading Kahler's book.Let's see the differences.1.)Toby,in the story,is a sly,fat, lazy glutton,who leaves a brutal orphan's home in order to avoid doing his chores,and being punished for dishonesty.He joins the circus,and wages an undercover war against the evil management.2.)The circus is a dreary,run down dump,managed by vicious alcoholics who beat and cripple children.Toby,consequently,starts a guerrilla war against them.3.)The people who work in the circus,when they aren't brutal bullies,are among the most grotesque characters in Victorian American fiction.4.)Toby DOESN'T become a star on horses.Mr.Stubbs isn't a cute chimp,but a mangy,pathetic,morose old monkey.And the hunter does kill him.5.)The story ends with the manager of the orphanage taking Toby back.And you get the feeling that all will not be well.So,while the film adaptation sticks to some of the facts,the underlying message has been avoided.