Staunton Hill (2009)

Excellent but underrated film

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Okay I think everyone understands that any low budget movie is likely to have some funny quirks or things you might have done differently if you were the director. For the most part though I think Romero did a good job.The actors did really very good. The group of kids did a good job seeming really afraid. I thought Kathy Lamkin was great like usual. She seems to play that role a lot and it fits her great... she rocks.The special effects could have been given a little more attention. When one of the cast gets his leg shot off it just looks like it came detached from underneath the pant leg with no blood... not really convincing. But everything else was okay for what they had to work with.I think if you're bored watch it. It will keep you entertained.

My first glimpse of how this film would turn out was while still browsing at the video store. I saw the name Romero and thought to myself "Could that be the son of George Romero?" I flipped it over to read the back thinking how silly of me expecting to see some reference to George Romero, that would just be cheesy and unprofessional, but there it was. Great big bold letters that said "Son of the legendary George Romero!" My heart sank. I saw this as a sign that the son, as a director, and the film could not stand on it's own without the support of the name of his father. Being pressed for time I rented it and took it home, hoping for the best. It was just as bad as I feared it would be.I'll start of with the dialogue. It seems like the writing was done before deciding to set the film in the 1960's. It is throughout the film awkward and badly written, with a couple of 1960's slang phrases thrown in here and there. Then, as if the bold outline of his family ties printed on the back was not enough for the audience to make a connection to George Romero, the "hippies" had to bring up 'Night of the Living Dead.' The acting falls short of a that you would find on a television soap opera. I was waiting for the commercials to interrupt, and there definitely were enough pauses in the filming to insert them. It's as if he had a thought for a scene, then another thought for a scene further down in the sequence, but couldn't really think of what could go in between to connect them. Instead of filling in the plot holes he just faded out and faded into another scene. That not only looks terrible, it is leads to a non-cohesive storyline. Even with all of the inconsistencies in the story, it was clear at the beginning what the end would be.After watching it, I realize where the bulk of the effort went... gore, gore, and more gore. Disgusting, useless, and at times, clearly fake. I feel that I could recreate most of the torture and mutilation scenes with some fake body parts from a prop shop and about 30 gallons of fake blood, but who would want to recreate that? It seems that all of the violence and blood spill has become a universal cover-up for lack of creative thought. If you know an audience is not going to be interested in your story, try to add the most over-the-top gore and hopefully they wont notice how lame your story is. But if all else fails, drop the name of your famous father and it will be sure to get at least a bit of circulation.

As you have already read, this movie progresses at a snails pace. The first 48 minutes, nothing happens. Hitchhikers going to a rally. They get a ride. They stop for the night. They wake up. Eat breakfast.. yawn...Sure, the family is creepy; but, isn't that the biggest movie cliché there is? The filmmakers managed to pull out every trick that had already been done in other movies (most notably Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise) without adding in any elements of suspense, horror, or empathy.What little story there is is revealed in flash-backs that are so disjointed from the actual action that you just tent to zone out and ignore them. One, I thought was actually a commercial break; but, there weren't any commercials during this viewing.Yes, that's how bad this is. And, I've seen movies like THE PINK ANGELS. Don't waste your time, no one knows how to make a horror movie anymore, unless it's slathered with special effects gore.

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