Staunton Hill

Staunton Hill
By Sharon Foss

There’s something about the woods that sets the perfect stage for a horror movie. While some view nature as beautiful and serene, there are writers and directors out there who obviously prefer city life to country living. Because of that, they create a world of terror in the very woods that Mother Nature inspired. G. Cameron Romero is one of those directors who saw something sinister in a gorgeous autumn day, and made Staunton Hill.

Son of George A. Romero (Night of the Living Dead legacy), Cameron Romero takes us on a trek through scenery that may seem harmless enough, but in fact is full of death and destruction. The question is: Will daddy be proud? Staunton Hill is Romero’s third directed movie and while I believe a job well done is in order, it must be done when taking the script out of the equation.

The story is not original. Hitchhiking hippies take to the streets to get to Washington, D.C. during the turmoil that was 1969. They get a ride with Quintin, played Charlie Bodin of 24, with the hope to make it to the rally. Of course the car breaks down a few hours outside of D.C. and it’s up to Cole, played by the movie’s writer David Rountree, to decide what to do next.

They decide to head into the woods to get to the main highway. During their trek, they come across the Staunton farm, where they sleep overnight in the horse stalls. Only in the morning are they introduced to the Staunton family. The family includes Louise, played by Kathy Lamkin (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning), Mama played by Sherry Weston (In the Eyes of a Killer) and Buddy, played by B.J. Hendricks (who pulls double duty as producer of the movie).

The typical story ensues. You’d think since this is an obviously unoriginal story that the writer would avoid some typical clichés, such as having a character say, “Am I the only one who has kind of a bad feeling about this place?” But he doesn’t. It’s clear what will happen on this farm and it’s up to a viewer to keep watching, or give up.

It’s bloody and it’s gory and, I must say again, not original. If you’ve seen one movie about some crazy-ass backwoods family who kills passers-by, then you’ve seen them all.

However, this family has a reason for killing…I think. The movie ended before I could realize, and question, this subliminal story line. Did my delicious sweet wine make me cloudy? I wish I could say yes, but in actuality, this “reason” for the family’s destruction is choppy and unclear.

There are cut-away scenes of a doctor and nurse amputating feet. Then, combined with a Staunton family member doing some of his own dismembering, you figure the family snags some body parts for a reason. Money? I still don’t know. And there was no way I was going to hit the back button to re-watch any of those scenes to find out. Even when there is a montage of clips at the end to “explain” the connection between Quintin, the Staunton family, and the doctor and nurse, it still left me with a big question mark.

I blame the unsavory storyline on the writer, not the director. I chastise Rountree for giving us yet another movie with the same storyline. I am going to assume that Romero has enough skill in his family bloodline to produce higher-quality movies, but this movie is not one to put in his repertoire.

Best line of the movie: “Have you seen Night of the Living Dead and do you believe in zombies?

(Review by Sharon Foss – Original Post at www.terrortube.com)