Staunton Hill

As a true horror fan, coming across a movie that was made of no one less than Romero Jr., it was obvious that one had to see if directing can be inherited from father to son. And with no surprise, Romero Jr. decided to follow his father's path by using gut-wrenching gore as a major ingredient to make his mark on the horror scene. Then he had to come up with a story that meets most of the elementary requirements of the genre. Unlike his father, he decides to pick the raisins out of the cookie instead of exploring a new field that made daddy George world famous…. once upon a time! The entire plot of the story is taken from one single classic cult movie: Texas Chainsaw Massacre! Nothing wrong with that, however, when a director decides to make his/her own interpretation of a classic cult, it heightens the expectations! Despite high ambitions from the director, the move fails to deliver that particular suspense that is the very meaning of watching a horror in first place. My conclusive review of this movie is that in this day and age, and with the plethora of horror movies that are released on a daily basis, a lot more is needed in order to provide something that is worthwhile watching.

I thought that maybe, just maybe, some of George Romero's talent rubbed off on his son. Not a chance. Not that "pops" is a super talent like Kubrick,but at least he's found his niche with zombies. His son has not.

This film was nothing more than a blatant rip off of Texas Chain Saw Massacre with the usual bunch of Southern inbreds that we've seen repeatedly in other slasher movies.

Staunton Hill was a low budget, poorly written, poorly directed, poorly edited and overall poorly produced film. I believe that it went straight to DVD and if it was ever seen in a theater, the audience must've gone to sleep or left after the first 20 minutes. I would.

This flick had just the most ridiculous dialog, it dragged and dragged and made little sense. Plot holes that would suck in a solar system. Supposely, this yawn, I mean this yarn, had taken place in 1969. Whoever was the stylist (I'm assuming they had one)had totally missed the mark with period correct clothing and hair styles (accept for the black dude with the afro pick sticking out of his hair.)

Nothing was clear at all, including the reason for making this movie. The only reviewer's quote to appear on the DVD cover box was from George Romero. Not exactly objective.

I'm assuming that this was baby Romero's first attempt at film making. He gets a B minus for effort, and a slap on the back for a "better luck next time kid," if there is a next time.

The year is 1969 (supposedly). A group of friends traveling to a rally in Washington, D.C. hitch a ride with a nice enough fellow they meet up with at a run down gas station. However, a few miles along their journey, the fellow's car breaks down, causing the group to have to hike through the hills in search of shelter and help. They happen upon an isolated farmhouse, which at first seems abandoned. They take it upon themselves to camp out in the barn for the night, only to be greeted by the Stauton family in the morning. This odd bunch consists of the the mother, grandmother, and a mentally challenged adult boy. At first, the family is nice (except the boy, who takes a hammer to one of the traveler's face for saying HI to him). It doesn't take long before the true intentions of the Staunton family is exposed and they friends begin getting brutally butchered and dismembered one by one.

The Good: The acting in "Staunton Hill" is actually pretty good. The setting is creepy and used to full effect. However, what the film has going for it is a few inspired moments of gore and how the killer casually goes about brutally disposing of his victims. It is rather disturbing, though the motive behind the killings is confusing and not fully elaborated on.

The Bad: The plot is EXTREMELY clichéd. This is the same old "friends venture upon a isolated house and are slaughtered by a disturbed family" formula that we have seen many, many times before. Worse yet, director Cameron Romero (horror icon George Romero's son) does absolutely nothing new with the formula. It is business as usual as characters do the exact things we expect them to do and the film ends the exact way we expect it to end. The film is also suppose to be set in 1969; however, it is painfully obvious from the clothing, hair styles, and some set pieces that it is modern day. This is troubling because there is absolutely no reason mentioned for WHY the film has to be set in 1969. It would have been the exact same film had it been set in 79, 89, or 09. Romero's direction shows some inspired moments, yet is still pretty run-of-the-mill. When your last name is Romero and you are directing a horror film, you should probably take painstaking steps to make sure your film stands out among the countless others like it; this does not happen here. Maybe it us unfair to hold Cameron Romero to a higher standard, but with the Romero name plastered numerous times of the DVD cover, I think it is fair game. Does he show potential? Yes, but hopefully with his next project he makes an interesting movie that is not steeped in your typical horror clichés.

Overall: While "Staunton Hill" isn't the worst movie of its kind, it certainly has very few redeeming qualities. It's clichéd, rather boring in parts, and offers nothing new to the genre. Rewatching "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" would be time better spent if you are dying to see a deranged family kill of innocent victims who stumble upon their residence.

My Grade: D

In Germany the cover of the DVD states: Romero's Staunton Hill. And while it is true, that the directors name is Romero, it is not Mr. George A. Romero himself. It is his son. While not his first movie (and hopefully not his creative height), this is a decent effort. Of course with the burden of the Romero name, he almost is damned to deliver. I wonder what daddy says/thinks ...

Seriously though: I'm sure he encouraged his son to take this step into the film world. If it the right decision ... well only time will tell. Judging him after this movie wouldn't be fair. After all, not everyone can be a Romero ... A. Romero that is, and deliver a Masterpiece as his first big movie (Night of the living Dead).

While the characters are bland, the storyline confusing and quite some flaws in the story department, it's still more or less your standard fare backwoods horror movie. Nothing special, but not particularly bad either ...

I guess that George Romero's son has seen Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Hills Have Eyes and all of the cliché movies that followed them. The story, while understandable, is not well defined. It had a very slow beginning and then the meat of the story was vague. Some of the effects were good, the acting was good, but no matter how good you are, if your story is not solid, it all falls apart. The story is about some young people hitching a ride. They make friend with a guy that has stopped at a gas station to add water to his truck. He offers them a ride and of course the truck breaks down. They go to the nearest house they can find, but no one answers the door. Since it is starting to rain, they all decide to stay the night in the barn. When they wake up the next morning, the meet the family that owns the farm. Buddy is the simple minded adult male, then we have his mom, then we have her mom. They family is very welcoming and serves them breakfast. After breakfast they try to find a mode of transportation. Then the weak story starts.