Director Report Card: George A. Romero (1975)

3.5. The Amusement Park

It was a scenario so fitting that it prompted a hundred pun-filled headlines. Three years after his death, a lost film from the inventor of the zombie genre would emerge from the cinematic cemetery and be unleashed on the world. Yes, here in 2021, we now have within our reach a “new” – or, more accurately, newly unearthed – George A. Romero movie. Before its rediscovery, only the most die-hard of Romero scholars had heard of “The Amusement Park.” I considered myself a pretty big fan of the guy and I had never heard of the movie until the news broke a few years back.

The circumstances surrounding “The Amusement Park's” production is, itself, a great story. In-between “Season of the Witch” and “The Crazies,” Romero was commissioned by the Lutheran Church to produce an educational film. The chosen topic was age discrimination and elder abuse. I guess the Church had different expectations than you and I would when hiring the director of “Night of the Living Dead.”  The subsequent film was considered disturbing enough that it was barely screened and quickly buried. For forty years, it was considered lost. A rare 16mm print was found in 2001 and the slow road to restoration began. It wasn't until 2018 that the restored film began to play festivals. Finally, earlier this year, Shudder made it available to the public at large. Now, “The Amusement Park” can be watched and judged within the context of Romero's overall career.

Following a short introduction from the film's star, explaining its themes, we begin. An unnamed old man, bloodied and bruised, sits in a white room. His clean-cut doppelgänger appears before exiting the room into an amusement park. In the park, the old man isn't allowed on most of the rides due to his health conditions. The staff is actively hostile to the man. Soon, he suffers ever graver humiliation, before being violently attacked. All the while, the people around him — in the prime of their life — ignore his mistreatment.

"The Amusement Park" is a potent metaphor for the abandonment and abuse of the elderly. Like Romero's best social commentaries, it's not exactly subtle either. The roller coasters in the park are marked with signs, forbidding anyone with a weak heart, diabetes, or any other common ailment facing the elderly from riding. The ticket barker doesn't care that the man is on a limited income as he takes his money. There's even a lengthy digression, depicting an old woman trying to alert people to her husband being sick while she is ignored by the people. At least by the ones that aren't actively hostile to her. Later, the bloodied old man seeks medical treatment himself, before being pushed through a cafeteria-style hospital who literally put a band-aid on his wound before shuffling him back out. 

In other hands, blatant symbolism and metaphors like this might've come off as ham-fisted or overly obvious. Romero, however, knew how to make this kind of thing work. From the opening minutes, he establishes an unsettling, dream-like atmosphere. The first scene, where two different versions of the same man meet in an unearthly white room, let's us know immediately that this story doesn't reflect literal reality. All throughout the film, a grim reaper-like figure is seen lurking behind the old man. At times, the environment seems to freeze around him, immediately becoming empty. This is his nightmare, a nightmare that many elderly people face every day, and we are trapped in it. 

This surreal ambiance seems to most link "The Amusement Park" to Romero's more slow-paced, character-driven films like "Martin" or "Season of the Witch." But just wait, because the guy who made those gory zombie movies is lurking in here too. After suffering numerous psychological and moral humiliations, the old man is subjected to brutal violence. A cartoonish motorcycle gang — not unlike the one that would later appear in "Dawn of the Dead" — rides into the park. They proceed to beat him in an extended sequence that isn't especially bloody... But is still harrowing because of the way it lingers on the pain and terror the old man feels in this moment. Scenes like this are paired with the loud, rushing environment of an amusement park, quickly making the film an overwhelming sensory experience.

What makes "The Amusement Park's" acts of psychological and physical abuse so bracing is the performance at its center. Lincoln Maazel, who would go on play to Tateh Cuda in "Martin," stars as the old man. In the beginning, he is optimistic and positive. Slowly, the park grinds down his confidence before he's reduced to weeping while laying on the ground. Somehow, the film's most punishing moment is not the act of violence. It's when Maazel sits down at a picnic with a little girl, seemingly the only person in the park who treats him with kindness, and reads her a story... Before her mother scoops her up and walks off, acting as if the man isn't there at all. His following tears and anguished wails are absolutely heart-breaking. "The Amusement Park" wouldn't be half as effective as it is if Maazel didn't make you feel so badly for the old man. 

As much as "The Amusement Park" is specifically about the mistreatment and abuse that the elderly face in America, Romero also uses it to criticize the societal forces his films often commented on. A key moment has the old man sitting down to eat some lunch, while a clearly rich man sits in the same area. While the waiters lavish attention on this man, giving him fine food, the old man is ignored, treated rudely, and giving cold French fries. This illustrates that the abuse of the old is just another symptom of the same diseases that have always plagued America. Namely, the division between the haves and the have-nots. 

Perhaps the most disturbing moment in "The Amusement Park" occurs not during its main runtime but in its brief epilogue. When Maazel directly addresses the viewer again and informs us that he'll one day "see us in the park." After all, old age awaits us all and our fate may very well be the same as this film's main character. Romero packed a lot of disturbing power and potency into "The Amusement Park's" brief 55 minute runtime. I can understand a church deciding this was too spicy a meatball for them, though it absolutely makes its point with brutal efficiency. Romero took a simple for-hire job to make an educational short and created an unnerving horror experience. It's fantastic that this once lost gem is now available to everyone and can be slotted alongside the other classics its director made. [Grade: A]

Director's Report Card: George A. Romero (2007-2009)

15. Diary of the Dead
I worry sometimes about my generation, Generation 2.0, they’re calling it, the generation that created YouTube, MySpace, Facebook, that embraced reality television. We are increasingly self-involved and less concerned with the world around us. It seems we almost can’t experience the world anymore without the comforting detachment of a television or computer screen. We are more inclined to watch then to act.

George A. Romero is apparently worried, too. While most of the Seventies Horror Babies have mellowed in their old age, Romero is only more enraged. He’s never trusted the government or mainstream media but the supposed last bastion of free journalism, the new media of the internet, blogs, and so on, are even more vilified. It’s just more noise, cluttering up the truth. By the end of “Diary of the Dead,” Ol’ Georgie Boy even suggests that the best way to survive the increasingly frightening world we live in is to completely seal our self off from it.
Kids, Romero is back. After the disappointing “Land,” “Diary” is by far the most unsettling and frightening film he’s made in years. His social observations are even less subtle then usual and perhaps take up too much prominence. However, they are vital and far too truthful too ignore.

In addition to being upsetting on a social level, this is just a scary movie. Perhaps for the first time since the original “Night of the Living Dead,” we get a sense of panic, a sense of our reality and society completing crumbling around us and the world submitting to total chaos. The first-person camera makes this panic even more realized because we get a sense that this could really be happening.

The mood is fairly somber but moments are still set aside for the lighter aspects we enjoy about these movies. There are several awesome gore effects and Romero has managed to think up new cool looking ways to dismember living and undead bodies alike. There’s humor too, some of it really funny. (The Amish have never been better.) Don’t miss the cheap shots at some modern horror films and a handful of notable voice cameos, either.
At first, the cast and characters come off as amateur-like or shrill. However, as the story continues on, we get a hold of some of that strong characterization we expect and some surprisingly good performances emerge, most notably Michele Morgan and Joshua Close. A deal has all ready been struck to make another Dead film but George can stop now as far as I’m concerned. The cycle has come full circle. By going back to the beginning, he’s made the appropriate, excellent closer this franchise deserves. Good job, old man. [Grade: A-]


16. Survival of the Dead
During the nineties, it seemed like Romero couldn’t get any funding for his potential zombie projects. The fourth of his dead saga was up in the air for so long and fans cried for more Romero zombie movies. Now, here in the new century, it seems like the only thing Romero can get made at this point are zombie movies. And instead of bitching about how he can’t get his original visions made, George seems to think that making any movies is better then none. Said fans are now bitching about how these films lack the, aheh, bite of Romero’s classics.

So what of “Survival of the Dead,” the latest in the seemingly outgrowing “Dead Trilogy?” The exposition filled opening narration concerned me, as I didn’t want a repeat of “Diary of the Dead’s” didactic tone. Soon afterward, however, the movie evens out. It comes to focus on a group of six ex-soldiers, the leader of which was a minor character from “Diary.” While the ensemble style never really went away, this group of characters feels more like a Romero group of characters then either of those from the previous two zombie movies. Alan Van Sprang is a strong lead, grouchy, motivated. He’s a jerk with a heart of gold and entertaining to watch. The rest of the team is less developed. The swarthy Hispanic, the wacky comic relief, the hipster youth, and the butt-kicking lesbian aren’t exactly four dimensional, but all of them are at least given amusing dialogue. I’d say they have two and a half dimensions. The group of mercenaries are all quite capable fighters.
The zombies are not what end up providing the main threat. Instead, the group of heroes are dropped into an island were a religious debate rages. These zombies use to be our loved ones. Should we just kill them or hold on, keep them around, see if they can be trained? It’s a minor difference between the two views but it ends up creating a small war among the people. Any number of sociological ideals could be applied to this but, ultimately, Romero hasn’t had to change his themes much since 1968. Humanity refuses to address the real problem and instead focuses on inane, petty differences that amount to nothing in this strange new world. Society has collapsed around us, but there’s always time for a philosophical debate. Even if George has made this point six times previously (As have I), it continues to be a potent one.

Despite these heavy themes, the movie has an overall lighter tone. The script takes itself less seriously. The eccentric characters and the numerously comical zombie kills make that clear. (Sadly, a few of those kills are saddled by bad CGI gore.) It’s honestly the closest the director’s come to recapturing the spirit of “Dawn of the Dead.” Even the minimalistic zombie designs (Which I love by the way) recall that film. The music is overblown, that pretentious voiceover returns at the end, and I’m not exactly sure what to think of new revelation concerning zombie behavior. (The movie also addresses what would happen if a human bite a zombie, something I’ve wonder about for years.) However, “Survival of the Dead” might mark the return of comic book George Romero. It’s his most fun film in years. [Grade: B+]

So that's it for the George Romero report card. What about my statment at the beginning about Romero being one of the greatest horror filmmakers of all time? Does it still hold true? Look at it this way: The dude is responsible for two of the greatest horror films of all time. Are there a few duds along the way? Of course. Are his current films not as good as his older ways? Naturally. We all have to peak at some point and George is in his seventies. I will say this: A Romero film still has over a fifty percent chance of being better then most of the horror trash out there.

What's next for George? The only project he has announced at the moment is a 3-D remake of Dario Argento's "Deep Red." Seeing as how vastly different those two directors' styles are, I'm not sure if that's a good idea. Or if it'll even get made, seeing as how active production hasn't started yet.

My next Report Card will be Mario Bava, the grandfather of Italian horror. Before I get to that, I do plan on continuing the daily Halloween viewing updates.

Director's Report Card: George A. Romero (1993-2005)

12. The Dark Half
Taken as a part of Romero’s body of work, this represents something interesting. Unlike his most well known and well regarded work, “The Dark Half” doesn’t appear to have any sort of sociological subtext. Instead, Romero fills the film with visual layering. There are so many symbols used here. The pencils, twins, the switchblade, the car, the birds, even a roasted turkey seems to hold some symbolism, seems to further dive into the theme of halves. This leads to some truly interesting replay value.

The story itself is fairly predictable. It uses what I like to call a reverse twist in that what seems like the obvious twist isn’t actually the case. The movie doesn't go down the "split-personalities" route you'd expect. Instead, the story goes into more interesting supernatural territory. But just because it’s predictable doesn’t mean it isn’t good and the film still manages to build quite a bit of suspense. I can’t help but think that George was taking some cues from his buddy Dario Argento, as the murder sequences here are more elaborate then you’re use too.
Timothy Hutton is good in the lead(s), though when Thad Beaumont starts acting tough towards the end, he comes off a bit silly. Amy Madigan gives a very good performance, showing a lot of emotion, and Michael Rooker brings some weight to a thin role.

The bird imagery is obviously a Hitchcock homage. Sadly, the birds here look about as realistic as Hitchcock’s did. This is some awkward early CGI. And the film pushes it a bit in the finale and comes off kind of silly, even if it does lead to some juicy gore. Julie Harris’ character isn’t very good and seems to exist solely as a wobbly exposition mouthpiece. All and all, this is a solid King adaptation and a solid Romero picture. It's not a great film, but if this is an example of what a work-for-hire Romero would have looked like, I would've been okay with it. [Grade: B]

13. Bruiser
“Bruiser” is odd and off-center. The main character’s face becoming an expressionless mask seems to say something about the dehumanizing effect of today’s workforce. However, this angle isn’t followed through on at all. Instead, the movie seems to be about loss, and then the regaining, of identity, taking bloody control of your life back... I think.

Subtext isn't the focus here. The movie seems more interested in the routine, campy revenge story then anything else. Said revenge story is nothing special but at least has some momentum to it. There's at least one really good kill here, a fancy strangulation. (Is it just me, or does Romero seem very uncomfortable working in the slasher sub-genre?) However, in the last act when the action shifts to a rowdy Hollywood party for some reason, everything falls apart. The mood becomes shrill and annoying, characters start making irrational decisions, our suspension of belief is stretched too far with the whole laser thing, and we never really get a proper climax.
The oblique nature of many of the story’s aspects, not to mention that it’s a Romero movie, would make you think there would be some meaning or subtext behind the action. But there doesn’t seem to be… “Bruiser” ends feeling very hollow and, well, pointless. His heart just wasn't in this one, I suspect.

Jason Flemyng is decent in the lead and at least knows what he’s doing with his character, even if the movie doesn’t. Peter Stormare is irritating and way too broad. Tom Atkins shows up and does his cop thing but doesn’t bring much energy to his role. And why is so much attention paid to the presence of horror-punk band The Misfits? I mean, I like The Misfits and all but did the movie have to become a music video for a few minute near the end? This is Romero’s strangest film and, sadly, one of his worse. [Grade: C-]

14. Land of the Dead
“Land of the Dead” disappoints. Horror fans waited through the nineties, hoping Romero would return with the epic conclusion to his Dead cycle, a “Twilight of the Dead” if you will. He talked about it for a long time, how it would be about humanity moving on, about the undead rotting away and society reforming itself. He also promised an epic even wider in scope then “Dawn.” “Land” doesn’t deliver on those early promises. First off, no satisfying conclusion to the “Dead” story is anywhere in sight. Secondly, the dead/living conflict is hardly resolved. I suppose there’d be no real way of doing that, but I would’ve liked something more then the shrug we get.

It’s easy to criticize “Land of the Dead” for what it isn’t. So let’s criticize it for what it is. The weakest element is its characters. Hero Riley is wildly uninteresting. How much of this is the writing and how much of it is Simon Baker’s white-toast turn, I can’t tell. John Leguizima gives an okay performance but, if Cholo was an attempt to create another Peter, it failed. The character isn’t that charismatic or exciting. Dennis Hopper, God rest his soul, gave an odd performance. His stilted speech makes it seems like he’s almost going for comedy. The only likable characters in the film are Robert Joy’s Charlie and Asia Argento’s Slack. Joy makes Charlie as lovable a misfit as possible while Argento could make reading the phone book seductive. I don’t know if you could’ve built a movie around them, but it probably would’ve been a better one.
Now the other major problem. The evolution of the zombies’ personalities was clearly set-up by Bub. However, it’s taken too far. Big Daddy has more personality then most of the human cast, but the image of him ordering other zombies around, planning strategies, shooting guns, and setting off explosives is too much.

The politic subtext is obvious. The movie might as well have been called “Eat the Rich.” The zombies are the put-upon, lower-class citizens. The poor and the downtraught, and probably blue collar workers. (Big Daddy is a gas attendant and another notable zombie is a butcher.) The rich literally live in their towers, shielded off from the world, with all the best life has to offer, while the poor toil with the zombies. Naturally, the zombies, the lowest on society’s ladder, revolt and raid the castle. After all those evil rich people are eaten, the poor people can live in peace and the zombies march off. Its ham-fisted, obvious, and a case of the politics getting in the way of the movie. Hopper’s Kaufman is obviously a Bush figure and the talks of terrorism don’t go anywhere. And, perhaps, I’m reading too much into it, but the way everyone talks about going to Canada like it’s the promise land… It makes me wonder if that’s another political point.
So what does the movie do right? The gore is great. And I mean the real gore, not that CGI shit, of which there’s far too much of. But when it focuses on creative gruel, it shows some skill. A zombie pulls a tongue out, an arm is split down the middle, a belly-button piercing is pulled out, a solider pulls the pin on a grenade only to have his arm cut off, causing the bomb to go off right under him. A zombie’s head is severed by gunfire, its eyes still blinking. Another zombie’s head is connected only by a spine. Moreover, the KNB provided zombie designs are also fantastic. The undead’s raid on Fiddler’s Green is pretty satisfying, while the Dead Reckoning itself is a threatening piece of machinery.
Out of the whole series, the film’s world does feel the most foreign. It certainly feels like some sort of post-apocalyptic world. Romero used his big, studio budget well there, creating a genuine sci-fi setting. An earlier scene involving a suicide is very well done, as is the scene that introduces Argento’s character. Savini’s cameo is a great fan boy moment. If he wasn’t willing to satisfactorily wrap up his series with a proper ending, couldn’t George at least focus modern anxieties into a tight horror tale? “Land of the Dead” isn’t a total dud but it’s far from the triumphant return we all hoped for. [Grade: C]

Director's Report Card: George A. Romero (1985-1990)

9. Day of the Dead
“Day of the Dead” took a rocky road to the status of horror classic. The general response upon release, from both mainstream critics and horror fans, was disappointment. It’s understandable. “Dawn” is a hard act to follow and the movie was overshadowed by “Return of the Living Dead” and “Re-Animator,” both released the same year, whose injection of comedy and sexiness into the zombie genre seemed comparatively fresher. However, “Day of the Dead” has aged well. It’s not the easiest movie to like but becomes more accessable with repeat viewings.

The characters are both its biggest assets and most obvious weakness. The military types are all abrasive, while the rest of the cast are more personable. Sarah, played solidly by Lori Cardille, is an okay lead but Rastafarian helicopter pilot John (Terry Alexander) and alcoholic radio technician William (Jarlath Conroy) are immediately likable. Dr. Logan, with his crazy eyes, frantic speech, and mother issues, proves to be too eccentric not to love, especially when brought to life by Richard Liberty. Meanwhile, the military ranges from the super-asshole Capt. Rhodes to the obnoxiously vulgar Steel and Rickles. (Admittedly, the actors are good in these parts, Joseph Pilato in particular.)
This is intentional, of course. “Day of the Dead” is about how people can’t communicate. It’s a comment on the militaristic, jingoistic, macho attitudes that ruled the country at the time and its total disinterest in listening to anyone else’s opinions. Maybe not as powerful a metaphor as the previous “Dead” films but a valid one none the less, especially when you realize how little things have changed. I know I’m repeating myself here, but George continues to make the main point that people refuse to communicate, work together, put their nonsense aside, and actually solve the problems, even as deep into a crisis as they are here. It’s the common thread connecting all the films in the franchise.

None of the characters are as interesting or captivating as Bub, the zombie with a soul. Brought to life in a brilliant physical performance from Howard Sherman (Or is that Sherman Howard?), Bub takes everything we love about zombies and then adds another dimension of emotion. It’s amazing what giving a zombie a personality can do for it.
Speaking of which, the zombies are great looking, each one unique, like rotting, bloody snowflakes. By its same accord, the gore effects are hugely impressive. Tom Savini really outdid himself here. “Day of the Dead” rivals the sickest Italian cannibal flicks for some of the most intense gore sequences around. Captain Rhodes’ death sequence has got to be one of the best in horror history.

The underground bunker makes an atmospheric setting, with its cross of shadowed caves and flat concrete. The Caribbean influenced synth score is pretty decent, with an interesting main refrain, but feels somewhat flat in other parts. The movie’s plot on-folds in a somewhat predictable manner and drags a little before the big ending. I’ve heard the resolution called overly convenient. Maybe. But I sort of like it, in all of its idealistic ways. You can tell that, despite all of his pessimistic attitudes, Romero does have hope for humanity. Probably the weakest of the original 3 “Dead” films but “Day” easily stands among the other two. [Grade: B+]


10. Monkey Shines
The biggest problem with “Monkey Shines” is, surprisingly, not its silly concept. Yeah, killer helper monkey sounds pretty dumb but the movie actually makes that work on at least two occasions. The idea is built-up throughout until being paid off during the rather suspenseful climax. At the very least, putting us in the places of an almost completely helpless individual who is then at the beset of a possibly dangerous helper, is a good idea.

It’s actually the cast of characters that provide the biggest issue. Nobody is really likable. Our protagonist is abrasive and Jason Beghe is too broad in the role. The character pretty much treats everybody else in the movie like crap, especially his mother and his nurse, who don’t seem to deserve the abuse most of the time. The supporting cast fares no better. Dorothy Van Patton and Stanley Tucci are both over-the-top, far more annoying then endearing, while Kate McNeil is underdeveloped as the shoehorned in love interest. Christine Forrest is the most relateable performance here, probably just because I felt sorry for her.
The music is a little over the top. There is a subplot involving animal testing that goes largely nowhere. I did like the atmospheric drug scene and the steamy love scene is… Interesting. The final jump scare is very silly, though. “Monkey Shines” might seem like an easy target for ridicule but most of its unfounded. It’s a very flawed attempt at a pretty decent thriller that actually makes a ridiculous concept work but is undone but something completely unrelated. The film does have a fantastically creepy movie poster, seen to the left. [Grade: C+]


11. Two Evil Eyes (with Dario Argento)
Segment: "The Facts in the Case of Mr. Valdemir"
The idea behind “Two Evil Eyes” is exciting. We have two of the greatest horror directors of all time getting together to adapt stories from the grandfather of the genre. Considering these expectations, the results are disappointing.

Romero’s segment, “The Facts in the Case of Mr. Valdemir” is the weaker of the two halves. Adreine Barbeau is decent enough in the lead and Tom Atkins has a cameo. The story presents a lot of interesting angles with the discussion of hypnosis and the afterlife. Sadly, these ideas are underdeveloped and not used to their full potential.
I’ve heard some compare the overall look of the piece to Romero’s TV series, “Tales from the Dark Side.” If it wasn’t for some last minute gore effects from Tom Savini, this could easily fit into that series. When a theatrical movie has the same level of scope, feel, and general look of a half-hour television show, that’s never a good sign. “Two Evil Eyes” was a failure and a disappointment and, sadly, seem to be the turning point in both Argento and Romero’s career.
The Facts in the Case of Mr. Valdemir: [C] Film as a whole: [C+]

Director's Report Card: George A. Romero (1981-1982)

7. Knightriders
There’s something about “Knightriders” that almost feels like a confession on Romero’s behalf. With this one, only his second non-horror movie and only the first to ever be widely released, it’s almost like he’s saying that, while he’s stuck making horror movies for the rest of his life, his heart really belongs to slow, character-driven dramas.

Even then, “Knightriders” is hardly a typical character drama, even by nineteen seventies standards. If there was a studio pitch, which there wasn’t, it would’ve been “The Arthurian Legend on motorcycles.” Even then, the story plays with expectations and it’s ultimately more inspired by the King Arthur legend then an adaptation.

On a strictly visual level, this is one of Romero’s most captivating films. From the opening sequence down to the last frame, there’s an air of dreaminess floating through the whole thing. Many shots of the motorcycles on the road are just exciting for some reason and really capture the sense of speed and exhilaration that comes from riding. The jousting scenes themselves are also shot in an exciting style. This is how action movies use to look, kids. The excellent music is also worth pointing out.
What really keeps the movie going is a cast. While Ed Harris is strong in the lead role, what really impressed me about the movie is Tom Savini’s turn. While he had acted in Romero’s flicks before, this is the first time Tom’s had a part of great significance and extended screen time. And, surprise surprise, it’s actually a really good turn. Tom expands pass the kind-of-love-him, kind-of-hate-him smart-ass he’s played in the past (and would continue to play in the future) to actually develop things like arcs and layers. Brother Blue is hypnotic as the Merlin of the group. Also keep an eye open for many of the Romero company players, like Christine Forrest, John Amplas, Ken Foree, and Patricia Tallman.

The story is always moving forward, in the style you’d expect of a road movie, but it wanders as well. The movie is long at two and a half hours and it seems like there could have been some editing. The main character’s dilemma, to hold onto his dreams and honor in the face of real world concerns like how to pay the bills, is a little overplayed. The movie stretches that issue out for too long. I also feel like the confrontation between local police and the scenes of Savini’s group on their own probably could have used some subtle clipping. The movie manages to wrap up all of it’s plotlines in an incredibly neat (A little too neat, I think) way before concluding on a sad, inevitable note. “Knightriders” is one of Romero’s most ambitious films, perhaps a decree to Hollywood that he himself refuses to sell out. It’s not a perfect movie, maybe not even a good one, but interesting nevertheless. [Grade: B]


8. Creepshow
“Creepshow” is a rare example of a horror anthology were all of the stories work. Though some of the five tales are better then the others, there isn’t a sour one in the bunch.

Romero has mentioned before how the old EC horror comics were one of his earliest influences and is responsible for his belief in horror with a message. So he’s a natural choice to handle such an anthology. I have a mixed opinion of Stephen King but I will give the man this: If you can keep him from overwriting, he can do a damn fine old-fashioned horror story.

The framing sequences sets the trick-or-treat tone with an early shot of a Jack-o-Lantern. Stephen’s son (and now a famous author in his own right ) Joe King has a part, as does the great Tom Atkins, who is nearly unrecognizable without his mighty ‘stash. I really like the comic book motif. Romero incorporates panels, action lines, and bright coloring to further emphasis. George did it a good twenty years before “Sin City” and he does it better too, in a way that’s natural and never too flashy. I also like the ads within the magazine that bumper each segment.
“Father’s Day” is our first story and is a fun piece of horror formula. It’s got a cool zombie make-up, some neat death scenes, and a solid cast, including demented performances from Carrie Nye, Viveca Lindfors, and especially Jon Lormer.

“The Lonesome Death of Jordy Verill” plays like a slapstick take on Lovecraft’s “The Colors out of Space” and stars King himself. Now, it’s obvious that Stephen King isn’t an actor and, considering the bit is mostly a one man show, a stronger performer probably should have been chosen. But something about King’s goofy facial expressions and general mugging makes me laugh every time. He’s just having so much damn fun.

“Something to Tide You Over” is more notable because of Leslie Nielson. (Yes, that Leslie Nielson.) The story is mostly a back and forth between him and Ted Danson. While Danson’s character is fairly uninteresting, Nielson’s voyeuristic, vindictive son-of-a-bitch is immediately worth watching. It makes me think how good Nielson would be as the bad guy in action movies.
“The Crate” is the centerpiece of the film. Hal Halbrook is at his best as the beleaguered husband of a shrewish Adrienne Barbeau who plays down her natural beauty for the obnoxious part. I’m not quite sure while “The Crate” resonates so much. Maybe it’s the idea of sorting out what makes your life unhappy. Or perhaps the concept of finding something old, horrible, and unexplained in a normal place. Or maybe it’s just because it has a really cool monster and some nice gore effects. Either way, the segment really sums up the film’s mixture of black comedy and classical horror concepts.

I can’t decide if it’s the best part or if that title belongs to the next sequence, “They’re Creeping Up on You.” The final tale is definitely the creepiest moment, as the images of cockroaches crawling over everything is squirm-inducing. E.G. Marshell is really fantastic as the paranoid, germaphobic old white guy who has alienated every person in his life and likes it that way. This is really the only time Romero’s typical social commentary comes into play and there’s something really satisfying about watching this son-of-a-bitch get his comeuppance. And its final image is one of the ickest of Tom Savini’s many tricks.
The fantastic score, which switches around from pounding synth cords, to scattered electronics, to simple piano and a children’s chorus, helps along the atmosphere. Savini actually gets to create some monsters here and they are all perfect, look like they step right out of the pages of “The Vault of Horror.” “Creepshow” is probably Romero at his most fun and prankish. It’s a textbook definition of how horror was done in the eighties. [Grade: A-]

Director's Report Card: George A. Romero (1977-1978)

5. Martin
“Martin” is more relevant now then when it was first made. In today’s “Twilight” world, vampires are so cool among the kids. Long before a sub-culture came into existence, George Romero was all ready there to knock some sense into it.

“Martin” is ultimately about two things. Mainly, an expansion on the themes of “Season of the Witch” in that beliefs only have the power that people assign them. Tada Cuda is a religious fanatic who believes in family curses, vampires, and exorcisms. Despite being presented with plenty of proof to the otherwise, he continues to insist that Martin is undead.
Martin claims not to believe in magic and yet, by the same accord, believes himself to be an 84 year old vampire. He dismisses most of the conventions and common beliefs about vampires. He has an uncontrollable hunger for blood but no fangs, so he slashes his victims’ wrists with a razor blade before drinking. He has flashbacks to gothic Europe and being chased by crowds of angry villagers carrying torches and pitchforks. The film is meant to be ambiguous in wither Martin is a true vampire but the intent is clear. He dons a cape, make-up, and plastic fangs to frighten his uncle at one point but quips afterward, “There isn’t any real magic.” Martin isn’t a vampire but a disturbed kid, alienated by an uncaring world and a superstitious family. After being told for years that he is nosferatu, he’s bought into it and now uses this fantasy as an escape from his regular life. His flashbacks are simply dreams and imaging, influenced by the movies he’s seen.

When Martin enters into a happy relationship, his bloodlust weakens. He isn’t hungry for blood but for what every lonely teenager wants: Acceptance and love. And sex, least we forget that. While the sexual aspects of the vampire myth are only implied, for Martin, drugging his victims and having his way with them before feeding is part of the ritual. He’s ashamed of his own sexuality and is hesitant to even use the word, but the safety of the vampire concept gives him carte blanche to explore his darker desires. He also longs for attention too and, by talking to a radio deejay, he is given a chance to share his fantasies with others.
In another way, the movie is also an examination of the vampire myth. Martin’s gothic flashbacks are in stark contrast with the reality of the situation. He doesn’t drawl any fair madams into the night with his dark mystique. He can’t hypnotize girls, he has to drug them. At one point, Martin breaks into a victims’ house to find another man all ready there. What follows is a real cluster-fuck operation and it’s only through quick thinking and luck that Martin isn’t caught. Later on, an attempt to feed on a homeless man goes horribly wrong and explodes into violence. (This sequence actually feels a little out of place.) He doesn’t stalk the castles of Europe but the industrial suburbs of Pittsburgh. Instead of being ruined with age, the town is ruined by economic depression. The final image of the movie is ironic. It doesn’t matter if you’re a real vampire or not. A stake through the heart will do the job, regardless.

Ultimately, more then any of this, “Martin” is a character study. John Amplas’ lead performance is essential to the movie’s success. He embodies the character and makes Martin a real person. Lincoln Maazel is convincing in his part. Christine Forrest is likable and cute in a part that really requires those qualities. Also watch for small parts from Tom Savini and Romero himself.

Speaking of Savini, the gore effects are phenomenal. That thick crimson blood, like “melted crayons” Tom says, looks great on camera. As a character study, the movie lacks a forward story, has a slow pace, and does drag its feet a bit towards the end. However, it’s a great film, one of Romero’s best, and a truly overlooked masterpiece. [Grade: A]


6. Dawn of the Dead
“Night of the Living Dead” changed horror. “Dawn of the Dead” changed it again. It spawned an entire genre in Italy and shaped the zombie film and the modern gore fest as we know them.

Romero took everything from “Night” and ramped it up, most importantly that film’s theme of people being unable to get along and let go. The zombie apocalypse shambles on, but the living masses refuse to get their shit together. This is displayed brilliantly right in the opening scenes. The chaos of the newsroom provides expositions for new viewers while also introducing us to half of our main cast. We then jog ahead to the SWAT team taking on an armed apartment complex. This scene furthers the theme with the belligerent racist cop and the projects dwellers that have dropped their undead relatives down the laundry shoot. We also meet the other half of our main cast.

This early scene, with its furious gore, exploding head, and vicious body bites, also shows us that the violence has been amped up. Romero has called this film the “comic book version” of the story and, with its focus on action and bright red blood, it certainly feels that way. (Might this be the first horror/action combo?)

The film’s biggest attribute is its fantastic ensemble cast. Romero has finally found a near-perfect balance between his character studies and fast-paced editing. Peter and Roger have an immediate chemistry together as brothers in arm. Ken Foree is perfect as physically imposing tactician Peter, while Scott Reiniger balances the friendship out as the more carefree, fun-spirited Roger. An attitude which does have major consequences, later on. As Reiniger succumbs to the infection, his sometimes doped-out, sometimes pathetic mannerisms, rear up against heartbreaking. David Emge does good work as the stoic Stephen. It’s a tricky character, seeing as how incompetent he is with a firearm. As the film progresses, Stephen becomes obsessed with the materialism of the mall setting and that obsession directly leads to the full-blown carnage of the finale. So maybe he holds the Idiot Ball a few times, but his downward spiral is shown as an honest reaction to the grim situation he’s in. Gaylin Ross is the heart, soul, and often brains of the group as Fran. She’s honestly the most logical person in the film, often displaying the calmest head in times of panic.
After a fantastically thrilling action set piece at the airport, we move to our primary setting, the infamous shopping mall. A lot has been written about the consumer culture criticism in the film. The parallel between shambling zombies and mall goers is obvious. Numerous times, when a zombie is shot, bludgeoned, or sprayed with seltzer water (It makes sense in context), the camera switches to a first-person view, placing the audience in the undead’s seat. Yes, viewer, these brain-dead mall zombies are you. It’s made even more obvious in the long middle section of the film. After a number of fantastic action sequences, in which our cast clears the mall of undead, our characters settle into their materialistic life. They count money which has no value, play dress-up in the various shops, and generally abuse the setting. But it eventually leaves them hollow and depressed. Now, logically, I’d say this has more to do with the constant reminder of their impending doom the living dead hordes outside their walls provide and less to do with the shallow, soul-crushing joys of materialism, but Romero’s point is clear. Later, when the roving gangs of cartoonish bikers invade the mall, they seem driven by some out-of-control desire for pointless stuff.

Beyond all the textbook subtext, “Dawn of the Dead” is a really fun movie. The story barrels ahead breathlessly with some of the best pacing and action direction ever seen in a horror film. When that depressing ennui sets in, it’s actually a detriment and a bump in the otherwise flawless pacing. And, yeah, as countless imitative video games have shown, killing hordes of zombies in a mall setting is a lot of fun. Zombies make the perfect fodder to be blown away, or pied in the face. Frankly, when is a zombie on an escalator not funny?
Romero is having a lot of fun too and that shows in his frantic editing. He also engineers one of the best jump scare scenes ever, with the mannequin fake-out. Goblin’s driving rock score provide these scenes with the perfect amount of punk energy. Later, when the wacky biker gang is torn apart by the undead aggressors like Chinese pork dishes, Savini’s brilliantly gruesome effects take center-stage. Even then, the movie can’t stop joking around. (The Blood Pressure Machine gag is hilarious.) And “The Gonk?” The juxtaposition between moaning zombies and cheery mall muzak never gets old. George even realized that the infectious joys of zombie blasting and mall sight gags trumped the serious minded study of consumer culture, mortality, and inevitable social decay. He nixed the suicide-filled original ending for one in which our surviving cast flies off heroically into the sun-rise. It’s a conclusion full of false hope but the right one for this movie.

“Dawn of the Dead” is a four-color zombie epic, perfectly mixing horror, humor, gut-munching gore, and social satire. Roger Ebert called it one of the best horror films of all time and I’m inclined to agree. [Grade: A]

Director's Report Card: George A. Romero (1972-1973)

3. Season of the Witch
First off, “Season of the Witch” is not really a horror movie. Besides the general theme of witchcraft and a reoccurring nightmare sequence, there aren’t any horror elements. Instead, the film is a talky character study, a peak into the life of bored suburban housewife. Her husband is negligent and occasionally abusive and her daughter is grown up, experimenting with drugs and sex, and no longer needs her. Looking for some sort of meaning in her life, our lead character turns to witchcraft. In a theme later continued in “Martin,” Romero continues to show that there is no such thing as magic. The only power beliefs hold are those ascribed to them by people. Everything that happens can very easily be explained without factoring in the supernatural.
The movie is slow, especially in the beginning. There are a couple of sequence of people just sitting around and talking that, while mildly interesting, really drags down the pace. Eventually, Jan White’s strong lead performance drawls you into the character’s world and things start to pick up. But there are still some long stretches. The supporting cast is pretty unremarkable, but Ray Laine is solid, if seedy, and watch for Bill Heinzman’s masked face in a bit part.
There are several really effective moments. The movie opens with a symbolism heavy dream sequence that lays out all the themes in a pretty obvious manner. Still, it sets up the off-center tone of the movie and is the most interesting thing about the first half. There is some nice editing in the later half, like when Joan really commits to witchcraft by stocking up on occult supplies (set to Donovan’s “Season of the Witch,” of course) and another part where the summoning up of a devil is intercut with a cat sneaking into the house. I also liked the big initiation ceremony of the climax.
The best bit is the scene were Joan walks into the house and overhears her daughter having sex. It’s a very real scene and Jan White’s facial expressions convey all the different emotions a mother must feel in a situation like that. If the whole movie was filled with powerful, subtle bits like that, it would have been great.

As it is, “Season of the Witch” (also know by Romero’s preferred title “Jack’s Wife” and the original release title “Hungry Wives”) will be overlooked by drama fans because of its horror connections and will probably bore most horror fans. Still, a good lead performance, several affecting moments, and a handful of potent themes make it worth a look. [Grade: B-]


4. The Crazies
“The Crazies” feels like an amped-up version of “Night of the Living Dead.” Instead of society collapsing because of the dead rising, it’s due to a leaked military virus that causes violent insanity. It shows the director’s continuing interest in the concept of society and sanity falling apart under the weight of infectious disease, mass hysteria, and the abuse of power. It’s an important transitional film in Romero’s career, which makes it a shame that it’s not better.

What sinks “The Crazies” is the decision to split the story into two. There are two separate plot lines that never interact. The A story revolves around David, the ex-Green Beret, and his pregnant nurse girlfriend Judy trying to survive in the chaos that has erupted in their small town. The second story involves the militaries bid to control the virus, the movement spearhead by the practical but cynical Col. Peckam and frustrated scientist Dr. Watts (who would later shout “Dummies!” in “Dawn of the Dead”). The movie cuts back and forth between the two subplots, preventing either from building up any momentum. The military plot is further divided by cutting away to scenes of political officials haranguing over what to do and outburst of violence as the military force tries, and fails, to contain the infected populace.
Those short scenes of chaos provide the film with its strongest moments. The movie has a strong opening, were we first see the affects of the virus on a domestic level. The image of a father suddenly gone mad and violently attacking his family is a powerful one. Later on, as the police force marches into town, each one clad in a deindividualizing white bio-hazard suits, Romero gets a number of jabs in. The soldiers force peaceful families out of their homes, in the middle of the night. One soldier steals a fishing rod from a home when no one’s looking. The soldiers stomp over a child’s little green army men. It’s not subtle, but it’s memorable. “The Crazies” is as much a movie about faceless military forces run amok as it is about biological weapons gone awry. (Considering how these themes resonate even more today, it’s no wonder this movie was recently remade.) Countless soldiers wearing those inhuman, depersonalized white suits is the movie’s most iconic sight.

Despite their apparent power, the military is harmless to stop the actual virus. The best scene in the film involves a rampaging group quickly overwhelming a phalanx of soldiers. A woman, mindlessly swiping with a broom, follows behind the mad group. Earlier, an old woman stabs a solider to death with a knitting needle and then returns to her chair, as if nothing happens. The movie needed more of this inspired madness. We see plenty of Tom Savini’s bright red blood spurting from squibs, and it needed more of that too.
Instead, George focuses on the people. Wide-eyed Lynn Lowry is good as the teenage girl Kathy, constantly watched over by her overprotective father Artie. Those overprotective tendencies take a disturbing turn as the virus takes hold, in perhaps the film’s most shocking moment. Later, a touching moment comes when Judy finally subsides to the madness.

The film ends on an inconclusive note. It’s not so much a conclusion as the movie simply ending. (While a sappy love song plays over the end credits, no less.) “The Crazies” is wildly uneven. While it shines a handful of times, it’s mostly a display for ideas that would be developed far more in Romero’s later films. [Grade: C+]

Director's Report Card: George A. Romero (1968-1971)

So, here it is, after much delay, is the George Romero report card. I've often refer to Romero as one of, if not the, greatest horror director of all time. Let's see how that opinion last as I sit down to watch all of his films.

1. Night of the Living Dead
So much has been written about “Night of the Living Dead” that one has to wonder what hasn’t all ready been said. One important question that isn’t asked often enough is, how did such a ramshackle, micro-budget movie forever change the horror genre as we know it? Oh, yes, they’re other important pictures that help bring the genre forcefully into the present, but “Night” cemented the deal. It didn’t cut away and showed all the violence and destruction in graphic detail. There was no going back and gore has dominated the genre ever since.

But let’s give things an objective look. This is hardly a flawless film. The low budget often shows in the sometimes shaky camera, not always smooth editing, and occasionally blurry focus. The stock music bombastic B-movie serial score certainly isn’t the most memorable aspect of the production. And Barbara is far from the most assertive horror heroine. She spends most of the movie catatonic. (Her character is the only definite improvement made in the 1991 Tom Savini helmed remake.)It’s impossible to deny the social vain the story tapped into. There are so many different concepts that can be gleamed from each viewing. What is “Night of the Living Dead” about, really? The movie is generally accepted as a metaphor for the changes the country went through at the tail-end of the sixties. The movie takes the ideal of the new culture emerging and cannibalizing the old culture and makes it viscerally literal.I prefer the theory that this is a metaphor for the national lose of innocence of the time. Instead of the terrible acts taking place far off in the gothic castles of Europe, the horror is right in our backyard. The nightmare is real and it is here. I can’t help but feel that Romero took in the chaos of the time and vomited it back at us on the screen. The grainy footage of the zombies feasting purposely recalls Vietnam news reel while the helpless reporters on TV reminds me of the aftermath of JFK’s assassination. And even if Duane Johnson was simply the best actor for the part, there’s no way his presence can’t bring the civil rights movement to mind. Either way, it’s about society entering a world were the rules don’t matter anymore. The dead walk. Children are rising from the grave and devouring their parents. Life has been turned upside down and there’s no escape.Despite all the obvious social commentary that can be read between the reels, Romero’s point here is ultimately more simple and fatalistic. Basically: Humanity is fucked. Even amidst the chaos of such an event as this, we still can’t put aside our petty difference and work together. If the people locked up in the farmhouse stopped squabbling over tiny little things that don’t matter anymore, they might have survived. If we could just stop being assholes for one minute, we could achieve something. But, nope, that’ll never happen because humans are fatally giant assholes. The final nihilistic message doesn’t show any heroes coming to save the day, just a bunch of trigger happy rednecks who’d use any excuse to go out and shot things. Even without the zombies, it’s inevitable that we’re going to destroy ourselves.

Meanings aside, the stark black-and-white direction creates truly chilling images. The scenes of violence are shot in such a furious manner that they are overwhelming, especially when aided by the droning score. The cast is capable. It’s a shame that Duane Johnson’s career never took off. He carries a natural gravitas and strength. Karl Hardman and Keith Wayne also give solid performances. Simply by acting beneath the radar and following their own subversive attitudes, Romero and company created probably the most important horror film of all time. [Grade: A]


2. There’s Always Vanilla
“There’s Always Vanilla” is Romero’s “lost” movie. As far as I know, it’s never been released on home video until recently. (And only then as a double feature with “Season of the Witch.”) Romero has gone on record as saying it’s his worse movie. Do I agree with that assessment? Yeah, sadly, though it’s running neck and neck with “Bruiser” for that dubious distinction.

The biggest problem is there really isn’t much of a story. Oh yeah, things happen but few of them lead anywhere. The story, which is sort of a hippier take on “Five Easy Pieces,” just kind of wanders around for ninety some minutes. The movie was apparently shot more as a series of vignettes and it had to be tied together in the editing room. That is all too evident.

Even the editing, something George is usually pretty good at, is weak. The cuts are far too sudden and often abrasive. Like the ending which doesn’t make a lot of sense. The music is also really terrible, fluctuating between tinny elevator music type stuff and really bad seventies indie rock.

There is some light praise I can throw around. The performances are pretty solid, especially from Ray Laine, who’s connecting monologues is one of the few high points, and “Night of the Living Dead’s” Judith Ridley does a decent job. Some of the more artistic montages, like a certain love scene, are pretty to watch. A chase scene in an abortion clinic is mildly exciting. The bits that deal with what goes into making a commercial are interesting and certainly something Romero and his crew would know about. Finally, I do like the opening and the public’s musing about the “ultimate machine.”

So “There’s Always Vanilla” is a weak, boring, confusing, wandering attempt at seventies art. It really should only be sought out by completist of the director. [Grade: D]