The Amusement Park

An old geezer wanders around an amusement park for 50 minutes. There's something about it that feels hypnotic and intriguing though. Many of Romero's directorial flourishes and styles are rough and recognisable here, and there's a Horror/Nightmarish vibe to the whole thing. That being said, I kind of needed more from it to give it higher than an alright watch. Not a bad little lost project though, and there's at least a purpose to the whole picture.

5.5/10.

A good two years after his passing, relatives of the great George A. Romero discovered and professionally restored a (short) movie the master himself directed in 1973 already. Evidently that, for many diehard horror fanatics - myself included - "The Amusement Park" promptly became one of the must-see genre events of the decade! Seriously, how could this go wrong? Especially with an awesome film poster like that, and the knowledge Romero helmed this little project during his most genius period as a director (namely in between the "Night" and "Dawn"), this was going to be a guaranteed winner!

"The Amusement Park" was apparently never meant to be an actual film, but more like an educational/awareness video message to make clear to younger generations that we are mistreating our senior citizens, and to urge everyone to treat the elderly with a little more respect and dignity. It's somewhat of an extended Public Service Announcement; - if you will! Of course, in the hands of the natural born rebel and anti-conservative George A. Romero, the concept immediately became a grim, shocking, and pitch-black social satire the producers never even dared to unleash upon the world. What a bizarre idea to hire Romero for a PSA-video, anyway. That's like asking Rob Zombie to direct a commercial for diapers, or recruiting Michael Moore to shoot a presidential election promo-video for the Republicans.

Romero's interpretation of the sadly factual and relevant social theme is nothing short of amazing, though. The film, which starts and ends with long speeches by lead actor Lincoln Maazel who elaborates on the subject, is overall extremely powerful, impactful, and very VERY depressing. Fancily dressed and in a joyful mood, our elderly protagonist hopes to have a fun day in a crowded amusement park. He quickly experiences, however, how he and other people of his age are constantly ripped off, patronized, humiliated, ignored, abused, and even physically hurt by all the so-called active and more productive members of society. Various metaphorical sequences are incredibly confronting and harrowing, like how the bumper carts turn into a recognizable traffic situation, or how elderly people are often denied to spent time around (grand-)children. It's a crude but eye-opening film, and it honestly doesn't even matter that it remained shelved for 45 years, because it is still more or less applicable today. Life-expectancy has gone up significantly, but for issue like loneliness and digital analphabetism are the new challenges.

George Romero takes us into the Amusement Park of life, in this case in particular, old age. Predictably we discover that its not all gaiety and all the fun of the fair but rather a sobering and at times harrowing indictment on the plight of the aged population in society. While at times moralising and at other times unmistakably a Romero film in its horror outing leanings, the thing I found most predominantly coming through to the surface in this lost 1973 film is the director's heart of gold. Yes, it was made partly as an educational offering but it has Romero stamped all over it and reminds us, well me anyway, that in spite of the rather 'colourful' nature of Romero's own self made genre, he must have been a most wonderful man if the underlying emotions firing this film are any indication. People have said they found this film disturbing and I have a sure feeling that these particular spectators are of a younger age. Myself, belonging now to an older age bracket, instead find it incredibly wise. Of course watching its protagonist stagger through the park, on a limited income, being ridiculed, beaten, and even having the clergy close their pearly gates on him, you can't help but realise that the film was perhaps just too accurate and ahead of its time for the people who originally requested that it be made. Its a potent and important film that finally saw the light of day nearly fifty years after its making. Bravo George...

Answer: The Amusement Park, an hour-long film on the terrible way society treats the elder commissioned by the Lutherans and directed by the great George Romero in 1973 but not seen until now. I can only imagine that the investors, upon seeing it, said, "WTF did we pay for???"

While it is what it is--a public service film on ageism--there's no mistaking that Romero directed it. (He even shows up as a nasty patron of the park's bumper cars.) It's extremely avant garde, humorless, and depressing. But it's well done on its nothing budget and still has a lot to say on the subject today. No, it's not so terrible or unfinished that it couldn't have been released back in the day. It's was just too much. (And kudos to George's widow and the George A. Romero Foundation for doing a nice job restoring it from a couple of faded 16mm prints.) It's worth a look as a weird curio and footnote to the career of the greatest horror director who ever lived.

When I first heard George Romero had squirreled away this movie where it couldn't be viewed my first thought was that it was probably awful. In hindsight, this was an understatement.

The Amusement Park comes across as an extended student film that tries to be clever but winds up being both predictable and dull. It doesn't help that the film's introduction basically tells you what you're about to see, making the viewing experience somewhat redundant, and the overblown in-your-face visuals combined with the non-stop cacophonous screaming on the soundtrack makes the 53 minute running time seem like a day and a half.

The "restoration" clearly ran out of money at some point as constant scratches and wildly uneven color balancing totally destroy any concentration the viewer might attempt - not that there's anything to really concentrate on. The bottom line is that it's a bombastic assault of both image and sound that's somehow supposed to indicate that society's elderly are getting a raw deal. And it fails spectacularly in attempting to communicate this sensitive theme.

It makes for nice marketing to imply that the film's financiers found the finished work to be too unsettling, gruesome, horrifying (all of which were used in the ballyhoo trumpeting this film's release,) but in truth it's just not a very good movie and really should've been kept hidden indefinitely.

But, since George's name has a dollar value attached to it and he's no longer a meal ticket to certain people, it's not surprising that this "discovery" was plucked from its dark closet, hurriedly patched together (by the talented colorist of such complex works as Pawn Stars, no less,) and auctioned off to the highest bidder as a "lost" Romero classic.

But the fanboys will still throw money at it because it's "George A. Romero" and they couldn't care less about being bilked as long as their obsession is fed.

The things greedy people do to make money . . it gets no more shameful than this.