Staunton Hill, Not Rated

At the beginning of Staunton Hill-- a movie directed by Cameron Romero, son of the legendary George-- characters and characterization seem not to serve any purpose. Neither does its clichéd and yawn-inducing plot. In the end of Staunton Hill, there are so called 'revelations' and they sadly do not really need to be even explained, as it's already pretty apparent of what was going on in the acts. The entire film is an utter mess, seeming to take on a throw-shit-at-the-outhouse-wall approach during a rainstorm.

It concerns a group of teens who run across a redneck family that starts to kill them one by one. With that said innovation in plot here is nil. Although this still would be alright, as a complex plot is not always needed for this type of film, especially considering that it often mirrors movies such as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)) in the stories intended feel. Yet, while that latter film was a classic because of what it did with so little, Staunton Hill never invokes terror or gives you the claustrophobic shakes. It is merely slavish imitation.

Starting with a well-executed bird eyeshot of the autumn scenery, this photogenic strategy does not serve any true purpose in terms of establishing mood, mise-en-scene, or thematic development. It also shows that C. Romero may have a good visual eye like his dad, but does not have anywhere near the know how or the script to back it up. The film makes so many mistakes and stupidities; one does not quite know where to begin.

For instance, what is the purpose of setting the script in 1969? Nor does one know the reason for having the evil clan be very religious, other than it just probably sounding good in screenwriter (and actor) David Rountree's mind. Yet, once those thoughts got to paper, only clichés and tedium came out.

Staunton Hill at 89 minutes takes nearly 50 minutes to have any real action on the screen. Sure, no problem, had C. Romero established mood and/or Rountree established character. Too bad that's also not the case. Instead, the conversations the teens have are both monotonous and dull. They seemed at best improv, and the dialogue ultimately seems without a purpose. The viewer never warms up to any of them, or even despises the villains when disregarding their evil deeds. That is a big no-no in a horror film.

When the terror does start, the viewer sees some very realistic gore f/x at work. There is also a somewhat effective scene with one of the male characters tied down and watching his girlfriend gutted. It may be effective more due to the situation/conception than having us care about the character, but it does work to a small degree. For that matter, the acting in the film is actually average, even if none of the characters take their thin parts further.

One even wonders if the audience is supposed to take it seriously sometimes, as Staunton Hill sometimes tries to have comedic banter between the villainous leads. Yet, this also makes it dumber and more akin to a trashy, C-grade schlock fest. This sense of bad-camp is specially apparent in one of the closing scenes involving the fate of the main hick badguy. What nonsense!

In one of its scenes, a character holds up a camera to another and mentions Night of the Living Dead (1968). It gets one wondering what father Romero would have done with this same material. As George Romero has never done a Texas Chainsaw Massacre-esque feature before. Unlike watching this turd again that is a film that I really do want to see.