Highest Rated Comments


isthishandletaken1788 karma

"I mean I want something good for my last meal, am I right?"

isthishandletaken10 karma

I enjoyed the first half of the film where the nostalgia was off the charts exploring the rides in the park, but when we learned of the deaths (especially the family that was interviewed) I lost all ability to sympathize with the park owner. I found the end of the film to be in bad taste, going back to the nostalgia and implying that the owner was somehow a good man because he helped with charities. I know this was hard to juggle and obviously you want to present all sides, but I found it to be a misstep in an otherwise really enjoyable film. Can you defend your choices here?

edit; Now that this has been asnwered; I will just say for the record that I felt that the filmmakers we're trying to have their cake and eat it to. No matter what they say about the people they interviewed not holding the same opinions as them, they chose which clips to include and presented the story in a way that felt off putting to me. The film reveled in the nostalgia and mythology of the park for over an hour, but only paid a short amount of the runtime to the deaths (only one family was interviewed and one case examined while every single ride was examined and had multiple people discussing them). They wanted to make a nostalgia film but knew they would be criticized if they didn't include the wrongful deaths. Well, they added it in, but wanted to wrap up the film on a more positive note, so they went back to the comedian interview. The last shot of the family at the grave was a throw-in and felt like it was fighting the still somewhat nostalgic tone of the final scene.