Staunton Hill (2009) Online

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

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.

George Romero!!! U owe me money. Ur son cheated me by masquerading. Normally I check user reviews on IMDb n trailer b4 purchasing a DVD. I bought this one because the DVD cover states: Romero's Staunton hill. I got a surprise when I came to know that it's by ROMERO's son, Cameron Romero. The movie was awful. Nothing scary or creepy. Jus a 1001th rip off of Texas Chainsaw massacre, but an extremely bad one. First the movie was too boring. I jus wanted to get my money's worth n sadly I saw till the end credits. Awful direction, bad editing, bad screenplay, decent acting n some good cinematography. Ther was gore but thats too lame. No tension, no character development, no suspense, nothing. The ending was even more bad. What a talent this Cameron guy. The guy deserves an Oscar for the most original plot. The dude is really talented man. He acted in this film too. I mean he got credited as an actor for this film by jus landing his voice, as the telephone operator. As if his direction is not enuff, the guy is a writer, cinematographer, producer, camera operator n editor too. Wtf man. One more surprise I got. The guy is an executive producer of Singham returns too. I saw this awful film n i suffered. Plz avoid this.

OK, this movie is in no way a masterpiece, but still it is an enjoyable B-Grade Horror movie. I am a huge horror fan, and when I decide to watch a movie like this, my expectations are not to see Oscar winning performances or special effects...

Yes the plot is somewhat predictable, but that is part of the fun in watching these kinds of movies. The acting is good and more importantly the characters are believable. A few surprises and plot twists keeps it interesting, and of course there are some good "gore" scenes. Some actually so gross that you almost want to look away...

Even though the story is not all that innovative, it is interesting and moves along well so that you do not become bored with it. Although it is not among the best horror movies I have seen, it was entertaining and therefor well worth watching if you are a fan of B-Grade horror movies.

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.

Staunton Hill follows a group of young friends hitchhiking their way to a rally in D.C., but when their paths cross with an all too eager to help stranger, their lives take a horrible turn. Their journey to the home of the Stauntons, a crazed redneck family who's involved in a very grisly, and blood soaked trade.

The storyline itself is your basic cookie cutter Texas Chainsaw Massacre type deal. You have it all from the racist gas station owner, the mysterious stranger who just wants to lend a helping hand, the abandoned farmhouse, and your over the top religious crazed hillbillies, one of which who happens to be retarded to some degree. The film takes a very long time to get anywhere. The buildup seems like it will go on forever, which caused me to lose interest quite a few times along the way. The directors attempts to show you bonds and relationships between the main characters falls short, and most of the time seemed like needless filler, only there to extend the films length.

Now the movie's only high point its beautiful special effects make up. The gore in this film is amazing, and stays true to the old school latex and buckets of blood formula that I will always love. That's right ladies and gentlemen, no CGI gore to be found in this flick, just good old get your hands dirty make up.

But in the end, the gore isn't enough to save this movie. I have to say, going in, I had high hopes for this flick, as a very big fan of George's I was hoping to see his son breathe new life into the namesake. Let's hope his next film is better than this ultimately weak attempt at a movie that's been way over done since the success of rob zombie's House of 1000 corpses.

2/5 - Ritualistic The Liberal Dead http://liberaldead.blogspot.com

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.

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 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.

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.

What a blatant act of misinformation to leave out that its "Cameron Romero's" movie. Honestly I don't care for his fathers movie either so its just a hopeless way of selling a movie anyway. But i hate when they sell movies on such points... most of the time you know they are bad. And "Staunton Hill is a bad movie too. The plot is a regurgitation of the never ending "Backwoods horror" theme with and inbred family, cannibalism and torture. You get your car full of kids in the woods, a fat dumb slayer... everything was there a million times before. The acting is often very bad. When the black guy watches his girlfriend being dismembered I was laughing.

What is done pretty well in the movie are the gore effects but I have rarely seen a movie where these felt as displaced as in "Staunton Hill". The movie is incredibly boring for most of the time. The male characters get killed in a most uninspired and uninteresting fashion while suddenly female characters get a boost in their on screen time when they squeeze in a 10 minute dismemberment scene which shows every detail. What the hell were they thinking... its all a cash off. Put a misleading name in front of the title, include some gratuitous violence and then just end the movie when you don't know where to go with it.

Ignore!

There should be a negative side to the star rating for those horrendous movies. This movie dragged on. The plot had many loopholes. The acting was bad as well. I fell asleep several times waiting for the first person to get killed. The actor who played Clinton/Quinton acted totally skitzo through the whole movie. Was he the son that was sent away? Who was the blonde girl on the operating table? What happened to the Black Guy? How come the short curly haired girl was the only one to survive? What were they killed for? Waste of money and waste of time. I'm fuming that my husband picked this up at Blockbuster. I wouldn't waste my $1.08 to rent it from Redbox.

After reading a lot of the negative reviews here for the movie, I wasn't expecting much. However, I was interested in seeing what the young Romero could offer, and this is one of my favorite subgenres of horror, so I decided to rent it from Netflix. I was happy with the rental.

I watch a lot of low budget, direct-to-DVD horror films, and many are painfully bad. This wasn't one of those. Even though it had a low budget, the film looked good for the most part (the setting was beautiful), the acting was very good for this type of movie, and it had a few good gore scenes. I'm guessing those who gave it such a bad review don't watch a lot of B-grade horror. Because, this stands out from the rest of the pack in a positive way.

Now to the film's weaknesses -- Let's start off with the major problem: the script. We get absolutely nothing new here. This story has been told countless times, and sometimes much better (Texas Chainsaw Massacre). Although, if you're a fan of the "demented country family preys on innocent folks" subgenre, you'll definitely want to check this out because Romero gives us a competent picture that's nice to look at.

Apart from being derivative, the script has a few more weaknesses too. Character development was lacking here in a major way. We learn woefully little about everyone involved. It would have been nice to know a little bit more about the characters so we could care more about them.

Also, the driving force behind the family's motives wasn't explained well. While most watchers will be able to get a rudimentary understanding of what's going on, a more fleshed out explanation would have been welcome.

And, the twist ending wasn't twisty at all for anyone who's seen more than a handful of horror films. That was poorly done.

Still, though, comparing this movie against other direct-to-DVD, low-budget horror flicks, I've gotta recommend it. It's worth watching when you've got nothing else to do.

I'm interested to see what Romero Jr. does next, and that's a compliment.

I tried really hard to like this movie. It has more holes than a golf course. I have no idea what even happened to buddy at the end, or any of the other characters that weren't killed "on-screen." (all the guys.) Who was that little girl in the beginning? the daughter of the mechanic? related to Quinton and his physco killing family? It's a slow starting film, boring at times, i kept it on in hopes it would get better....it didn't. Some scence were cringe worthy. Lots of blood but what horror movie doesn't have that? I don't understand why the hitch hikers didn't just walk back to the junk yard after the car broke down down less than 10 mins away. why spend half a day walking through the woods? That makes no sense. The acting was decent, better than most horror movies. BTW isn't Cole the "hunk" from that Britney spears song? I'm sure he is. Horrible movie. I wish i could erase it from my memory and get back my Sunday night.

While I wouldn't call this unimaginative, stupid film "the worst movie ever", it would certainly make the list. Unoriginal in every single way that a waste of time torture porn movie can be, this goes on the garbage pile with the various Saws, Wrong turns and Hostel type films. Cameron Romero shows no talent for direction at all and throwing the Romero name on this to sucker in fans, is simply crass. We've seen this all before, an attractive group of young people are set upon (why aren't any of these kids ever homely or average looking?)by an (take your pick) inbreds, isolated or simply nuts family. As usual when their friends are disaapearing no one notices. Also as usual, its the women who get the worst deaths. And one of the murdering clan is a superstrong moron. Bored yet? You will be if you waste any time with this crapfest. Its even worse than his Dads recent outing, Survival of the Dead. Avoid. Even Uwe Boll couldn't have done much worse.

Whilst George A. Romero might forever be pigeonholed as a filmmaker of living dead movies, and perhaps quite rightly, as some of his best work has been centred around the zombie genre, I did have have a notion in thinking that his son, Cameron might just be a chip of the old block.

Needless to say, such is not the case! Would it be folly to just place the blame soley at the hands of Romero Jr? Let's just say partly, as a lions share of the blame should also head straight in the direction of scriptwriter and bum actor David Rountree.

Not content with taking on one of the roles within the movie, Mr Rountree somehow managed to persuade the producers and Cameron Romero to get involved in this ultra slow moving Southern Fried Mash up! Granted, having read the synopsis on the back of the DVD cover, I did reserve judgement, however such hoped were soon slapped in the face, as many other reviewers have quite rightly noted, that nothing of major note happens for the first forty-five minutes.

And even in saying that when something does occur, it's all done in a very slow fashion, such was the lethargy for me, I had to reach for the fast forward button just to ward of the tedium. Of course I know I could've just turned it off and forgot all about it, but having watched many a horror movie both good and atrocious down through the years I wanted to persevere.

The net result was ultimately, a lack of pacing, a god-awful script courtesy of you know you, and although some of the acting was okay, it was the actions in the script that left much to the imagination, and as for the direction, whilst Cameron Romero might have a decent visual eye, he has a long way to go before he emulates the achievements of his father.

Keeping in mind the tag line, In God's Name They Prey! We should all pray that we never have to sit through another Texas Chainsaw themed rip off.

Son of George Romero follows in his father weaker foot steps with the tale of some kids going to a rally in DC and ending up in the clutches of an evil family.

While it's been done before, rarely has a story like this been this boring. Lots of set up and such before anything of interest happens. Actually what is interesting is trying to determine when the film takes place since it has things from a variety of times in it.

I won't lie, my finger hit the fast forward to scan through chunks of it. Some of this is good, but much of it is well, dull.

I'd take a pass.

I really do not know where to start,but this has to be the worse,or in my top 5 worse movies ever.

Takes too long to get into the apparent horror if you like,for me,the special effects are ridiculous and the storyline made no sense.

The worse part about the movie was the ending,there are two characters that magically disappeared,don't know what happened to them,one of them for instance,watched his girlfriend being torn apart,then in the next scene,he was gone,he was still alive,so what happened? The acting however,is where the one rating comes from,it was plausible,but the movie itself,certainly was not.

Everyone looked so familiar in this. If you are an avid horror movie fan you should feel at home watching this one. It is a Chainsaw Massacre rip off, better done than most. The Staunton family was great. Kathy Lamkin as the head of the clan was superb. The 6 college kids left much to be desired. It wasn't that their acting was bad, it was just that the writer forgot to give them interesting character. I guess the wheel chair guy had already been done. If you like watching bloody women getting tied down and having their clothes removed to their undergarments, then this movie is for you.

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.

Cameron Romero, son of George, directs this lazy horror tale about - sigh - a crazy redneck family. Set during the fall of 1969, the film focuses on 5 kids heading through Virginia trying to make it up to the rallies in D.C. They encounter a local racist mechanic (Cooper Huckabee) before hitching a ride with a guy named Quentin. When his truck breaks down, they opt to spend the night in a barn they find. The bad news is the property belongs to a redneck family (2 old ladies, 1 retarded son) whose family business is harvesting organs. This was Romero's second feature (his debut THE SCREENING still remains unreleased) and anyone hoping for a Brandon Cronenberg type "apple didn't fall far from the tree" will be disappointed. This is pretty lazy stuff, offering none of the social commentary folks have come to expect from his father (the Vietnam war setting seems to have been only done to keep them away from cell phones). Even worse is how ordinary the script by David Rountree is, with a plot stolen from the earlier BLOOD SALVAGE (1990) while Romero thinking he can visually do THE Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE (1974). He stumbles even when unfolding the story. For example, his reveal of a big twist is completely botched, exposing viewers to a character's duplicitous nature way too early. This lazy setup is doubly disappointing because the film actually looks nice and the location in rural Pennsylvania is absolutely gorgeous. I knew I was in trouble 15 minutes in when Romero has one of his characters ask, "Have you ever seen NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD?" C'mon, son (literally).

I'm not going to bother giving the plot details as other reviewers have done this already. I am going to give you what I liked and disliked about this film. I love all horror films and will give anything a go. I always read reviews on here first but try not to let them colour my judgement before I watch.

Having read quite a lot of negative reviews about Staunton Hill, I wasn't sure what I was in for. Personally I feel some of the reviews were a bit harsh, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. My opinion, is that this could have been so much more, but sadly the film ended up being a confusing mess. That's not to say it didn't have its positive points and I actually enjoyed some of it.

Firstly I loved the look of the film, whether this is down to direction or location, I'm not sure. I liked the fact that the Staunton family looked relatively normal. The gore scenes were, for the most part, realistic and well done.

However, I have no idea what the intermittent scenes of the doctor and the young girl were all about and I feel these were not explained at all. Also, as other reviewers have mentioned, we are left with no idea whatsoever what happened to some of the characters.

All in all, Staunton Hill had potential, but ended up confusing. The decent gore scenes bumped up my vote.

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.

As far as horror gore fests go, this one delivers. The dismemberment and killings are sudden and gross. The plot has a twist - it seems a mad doctor pays for body parts provided by the deranged family. The characters are all very well cast and are effective. It does, however, take the dumb victim syndrome to a new level. When faced with death, they don't seem to have enough sense to run and hide. None of these freaky homicidal psycho people can run fast, and the victims all seem able-bodied and athletic. Just run. One stupid victim ran in the middle of a dirt road while being chased by a chugging semi truck cab. Just dart off the road, up a grassy hill, around a tree, past the bushes...and you're free. But no...One guy gets his leg shot off below the knee...next, we see him tied to a table. Who carried him there? Why didn't he bleed to death? Why is he fully conscious? The gore was scary - the skinning, dismembering....very realistic. Throwing a body to the hogs was all to real looking. Taken for what it is - a gross out horror flick, it was scary enough.