It's the fall of 1969 and winds of a change are blowing across America. But on a remote family farm in the hills of Virginia, a storm of evil has been brewing for years. Now for a group of y... Read allIt's the fall of 1969 and winds of a change are blowing across America. But on a remote family farm in the hills of Virginia, a storm of evil has been brewing for years. Now for a group of young people hitchhiking to a rally in D.C., a detour to the nightmare homestead of Staunto... Read allIt's the fall of 1969 and winds of a change are blowing across America. But on a remote family farm in the hills of Virginia, a storm of evil has been brewing for years. Now for a group of young people hitchhiking to a rally in D.C., a detour to the nightmare homestead of Staunton's will rip apart their young lives forever. A grisly secret is waiting. The raw terror i... Read all
- Boone
- (as Kiko Ellsworth)
- Telephone Customer
- (voice)
- (uncredited)
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
I Didn't Need Another Derivative Film
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.
Been there, done that
Nothing new under the sun
Oh yeah, "Romero's Staunton Hill"...
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!
Texas Chainsaw Massacre Part 156
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
Did you know
- TriviaFilmed in only 6 weeks
- ConnectionsReferenced in The Making of 'Staunton Hill' (2009)
- SoundtracksDarkness Falls
Composer: Jesper Kyd
Produced, Mixed and Treatments: Jeff Blenkinsopp
Engineer: Chris Abell
Assistant Engineer: Alon Harish, Matt Gardner, Josh Ascalon
Guitars: James Chirillo
Upright Bass: Nick Scatmari
Drums: Victor Louis
Recorded at Dubway Studios NYC
Mixed at Ears NYC
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official site
- Language
- Also known as
- Cameron Romero's Staunton Hill
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $1,200,000 (estimated)
- Runtime
- 1h 30m(90 min)
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 1.78 : 1





