Staunton Hill

With "Staunton Hill" being a horror/thriller, and with my long-running love for the horror genre, then of course I took the chance to watch "Staunton Hill" when I got the chance. I didn't know anything about the movie prior to sitting down to watch it, but still decided to give it a go.

I managed to make it through a staggering 49 minutes of prolonged suffering as I watched "Staunton Hill". Then I just simply gave up out of sheer and profound boredom. Very little happened through the 49 minutes that I managed to endure, it was quite boring and uneventful.

There was some good enough scenes at the farmstead with some bloody and gore-filled visuals. But that hardly managed to lift up the less than mediocre overall result that the movie turned out to be.

The characters in the movie were not particularly interesting, and they were actually generic, one-dimensional and lacking personality and layers. As such, it felt like watching cardboard cut-outs of the characters waltz around on the screen.

I can in all honesty say that I have no intention of returning to "Staunton Hill" to see if the movie picks up or not. Because from what I saw from the 49 minutes deterred me permanently. If you enjoy horror movies, then there are far, far better choices readily available in the horror genre.

After breaking down on a less-traveled road, a group of young adults camp out at a farm in the late 1960s. But the property owners are a sinister lot, and their mentally challenged son has no qualms about doing some despicable things to them in exchange for some money.

This is my first encounter with director Cameron Romero, son of the legendary George Romero. I can't say it was the most impressive way he could have been introduced to me. While it had some decent moments, and what could have been an interesting subplot, the film came off as confusing, slow at times, and somewhat derivative.

I have seen the plot about a gas station attendant who leads a group to a dangerous house more than few times. I'm sad I had to see it again. There was some sort of story about skin grafting that went over my head... maybe because I found it hard to pay attention, or maybe because it fit in very loosely with the story. And the lack of nudity, while not a deal breaker in itself, condemned this "unrated" film to be not just boring but unredeemable for salacious horror fans.

Perhaps the biggest mystery is the film's time setting. If I had not read the box, I wouldn't have made the connection that this film was in the 1960s. Modern clothes were evident, and despite the family watching riot footage, it could have been an old program. Why the year matters to the story is beyond me. Sure, it eliminates the problem of ubiquitous cell phones... but what else? The film's one quote on the box has George Romero saying this is "as scary as it gets". If the only person you can get to endorse your film is your father, you may not be ready for the big leagues yet.

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.

I viewed "Staunton Hill" last night, and I did so expecting it to be absolutely worthless. I have read the horrid reviews and listened to all the know-it-all crap being slung on various message boards. Having given the film a watch, I have to say that certain criticisms of Cameron Romero are unfair.

The Writing:

We've all seen it before; a group of kids in some remote wilderness get chased down and murdered by some oddball inbred family. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. I can accept that played out formula if the characters take their own shape, and if there is a fresh take on said formula. However, I never saw that happen in this film. But rather than throw stones at Cameron Romero, one needs to look at David Rountree, the writer. The weakest element of this movie was by far the writing. The characters are predictable, one-dimensional, and poorly defined. The back-story is very vague, and there isn't much "horror" to the film until the last 15-20 minutes. The first 50+ minutes of "Staunton Hill" basically equal the first 15 minutes of similar films using that same "formula". That much is all true, but those criticisms should be directed at David Rountree rather than at Mr. Romero.

The Acting:

The acting in this film is hard to gage. I know that there were some talented people involved in this movie, but I fear that the poor writing ruined any chance these actors had to do their best. I've seen well- written scripts tackled by average actors in a respectable way, but I have never seen good actors be able to do good things with a poorly written script.

The Directing:

Where the directing suffered the most was in some of the jumpy edits and unsteady hand-held shots. There was good use of cam-cables and dollies at times, and there were a few really nice shots, but there was also some under/overdeveloped shots that didn't match up in certain scenes. With that said, I have to point out that this low budget film was indeed shot on Super 16, and thus presented a bit more of a challenge to shoot than HD.

The Characters:

To be fair and honest, I don't know what the script called for, but I feel that the characters could have been brought to life a lot more. I felt that the character of Buddy was a bit scattered and senseless, and I felt that the back-story on both the kids and the family was too vague. If you are going to tap that old "formula", than it is essential to make the writing as fresh as possible. I found that I couldn't identify with any of them because I didn't know enough about them. They all became caricatures rather than characters. Is Cameron Romero guilty of taking on a poorly-written and under-budgeted movie? Yes he is. However, it is unfair to blame him for either the writing or the budget. Could some of his shots have been more steady? Sure! But there are also some nice shots in there too.

The Gore:

I am picky about gore. I love it, and I am tired of CGI special effects. One redeeming quality about this film is that while we see no real "horrors" until the last 20 minutes of the movie, what we do see is decent... and not done on computers.

"Worst Movie Ever" Tag:

I watch a lot of films. My collection is vast and large. I have read the comments by people talking about this film as a "1 out of 10" worse. To be objective about it, I don't think this film is quite a "1" or a "2". The latest remake of both "Night of the Living Dead" (3D) and "Day of the Dead" were both 1000 times WORSE than "Staunton Hill" could ever be. A friend of mine brought me a DVD of 2006's "Night of the Dead". I'd dare ANY of you who gave this film a "1" or "2" rating to go view any of those films and then tell me that "Staunton Hill" is that terrible?

Don't get me wrong, "Staunton Hill" is nothing groundbreaking. Not even close. It is an old story that you have seen before. However, I will give the cast and Cameron Romero credit for their efforts. I know it's hard to please a modern horror audience when someone isn't getting their guts or brains strewn across the screen every 3-5 minutes. But with that as a given, the writing MUST be as strong as the cast and crew... otherwise you can't really do much.

I will write this film off as a "4.5" and wait to see what Cameron Romero does with a stronger script and a little more money. I think he's capable of great things if he plays it right, and I hope to see him make his own name in the horror field. We need to remove his wonderful father for a moment, give Cameron enough room to grow into his own shoes, and to learn from his own mistakes. As for "Staunton Hill", I'm going to pass at adding it to my collection... but as for Cameron Romero, I think the future might be bright when it is said and done. Time will tell.

-JB

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