Gritos de terror

Amicus and Hammer studios were very much in the same market, even to the point of competing for the same stars and directors. A quick glance at the cast, crew and plot summary of `And Now the Screaming Starts' could mislead one to believe it was a Hammer production: Roy Ward Baker, Peter Cushing, Herbert Lom and Patrick Magee were all known for their contributions to Hammer history, and the Gothic premise of a late 18th century ghost story fits their profile well. Nevertheless, certain elements tag this as distinctive from the Hammer cycle, and make it of note to horror completists, although perhaps of less interest to general audiences.

The film was originally based on an obscure novella entitled `Fengriffin,' after the name of the cursed family line around which the story centers. Of course, a movie called `Fengriffin' would have been a weak seller in any market, particularly the lurid horror market of the early 1970's, (`Texas Chainsaw Massacre' came out only two years after), so it was inevitable that a splashier title would be selected. In choosing `And Now the Screaming Starts', the producers assured their film cult status and greatly embarrassed most of the actors, who had thought they were working on a more `serious' film. The title seems to fit well, however, as lovely Stephanie Beacham demonstrates her lung capacity often, particularly in the first third of the film.

The story follows a standard plot of Gothic decadence: a noble family is cursed for the libertine debauches of an ancestor, and the young generation pays the price. This is typical of a period in literature in which wistful nostalgia for the aristocracy was combined with growing class resentment and a sense that the nobility had `failed' in their responsibilities as leaders. Amicus updates this by including an axe murder, a rotten corpse-ghost with no eyes, a severed hand, and a somewhat overly subtle rape scene by said ghost. The rape is particularly typical of Amicus' approach to the genre, as compared to Hammer's. At the time, Hammer was doling out overt doses of sex alongside their blood, and frontal nudity was not uncommon. Amicus, however, shied away from nudity or sex almost prudishly, and refused to allow its stars to be seen as compromised. Why they would select a story that hinges on a rape they refused to show (or even imply effectively) is perhaps the greatest mystery.

The true star of this movie is the female victim, often the case in well produced Gothic drama. Top-billed Peter Cushing appears 47 minutes into the movie as her doctor, an `ahead-of-his-time' psychiatrist who wants to prove that the supernatural elements are all in her head. The filmmakers have given us a few too many clues at this point for there to be any real doubt, but watching him methodically seek a rational answer (and his excellent downplayed performance) gives the plot a new lease on life after it begins to drag a bit. Patrick Magee as the eccentric country doctor and Herbert Lom as the decadent ancestor are also excellent. A bit less convincing are Ian Ogilvy as the concerned husband and Geoffrey Whitehead as the outraged peasant.

Overall, the film is directed well, nicely photographed, and has beautiful sets and good effects, considering the low budget. Nevertheless, it seems to lack `something' that would make it worthy of repeat viewings. The sense of dread one associates with the best of Gothic drama is undermined somewhat by the romantic, upbeat score. Perhaps there are too many scenes shot in daylight, or the castle isn't quite gloomy and decrepit enough to transmit the sense of the curse. Whatever it may be, I recommend this more as a curiosity than a great film.

This little-seen film blends together a myriad of classic horror themes, such as ghosts, crawling hands, wrong doings and curses. It's a classic example of British horror, set in a standard haunted house (there's even a graveyard nearby). Early '70s fashions are sadly non-existent here, as it's a period piece and all the costumes are of the historical variety, although there's nothing wrong with that. While the plot for the film is a typical (and dare I say clichéd) one, it has plenty of incident to keep it moving and loads of different ingredients to make it enjoyable. However, the winning formula for this film is the cast.

Ian Ogilvy (WITCHFINDER GENERAL), Stephanie Beacham (INSEMINOID), Patrick Magee (DEMENTIA 13), and Herbert Lom (ASYLUM) all act convincingly and enjoyably in their roles. Ogilvy doesn't get to do much but look haunted as the husband, but Beacham is on top form here, giving it her all as the screaming victim. Magee is fine as usual, while the fantastic Lom adds yet another cruel character to his resumé. As soon as Peter Cushing arrives, playing a doctor with a dodgy toupee, the fun really begins and things get even better. Cushing's performance is as usual, excellent, but all performances from a cast well familiar to the horror fan are varied and good.

The sheer diversity of different ingredients in this film make it work, and I advise you to sit it through in order to witness a most amusing moment at the end, when Ian Ogilvy dashes Herbert Lom's skeleton apart against his tomb - serve him right, the nasty old man. You also get the classic "crawling hand" prop, which was reused by various studios throughout the 60's and 70's - spotting it is half the fun! AND NOW THE SCREAMING STARTS may not break any new boundaries in the horror genre but it's a good, solid, old-fashioned ghost story and it's very entertaining, with exactly the same quaint and brooding atmosphere as a quality Hammer horror piece.

-- And Now the Screaming Starts! Was an attempt by Amicus Productions to move away from the Portmantaeu movies that was their stock in trade, to make a horror movie of only one story. The reason is not to compete with Hammer Films, since there really was no rivalry between the two companies, but just to show that they could if they so chose to go that route as well. What is evident is that their inexperience in this department shows greatly, making the film an enjoyable misfire, if ultimately a frustrating experience.

Story is set in the late 18th century and newlyweds Charles and Catherine Fengriffen move into Charles' family estate. Almost immediately Catherine starts to have terrifying visions, even experiencing what she feels is definite contact with something not of the natural world. Is she going mad? Or is there something seriously malevolent lurking around the dark corridors of Fengriffen Mansion?

What follows is a number of fun and creepy horror sequences very poorly glued together by a minimalist back story and thin characterisations, the Amicus production team just hurtling as quick as possible to the next scene involving Stephanie Beacham being freaked out and screaming. And of course for us to observe her quite magnificent heaving bosom. On reflection it's a collage of more famous and better movies, so a portmanteau movie that's not actually a portmanteau movie!

The cast list features Peter Cushing, Herbert Lom and Patrick Magee. Cushing doesn't show up until late in the day, and as classy as he was as an actor, he is phoning it in here. Lom only appears in an extended cameo flashback, which is annoying since the character is deliciously warped, sort of what Emeric Belasco was for Legend of Hell House. While I'm still not sure what Magee's purpose in the film was? Seriously!

Beacham and Ian Ogilvy's new marriage just sort of sits there without rhyme or reason, interesting threads such as Cushing taking an interest in sexual relations with demons never get expanded upon, and really there's no big finale to crown the story; though skeleton abuse does hold some macabre enjoyment value. Yet in spite of all its problems, it's still a fun night in with the lights off. Beacham's bosom, severed limbs and a vengeful curse from the past ensure it's worth watching for sure. 6/10

Odd film, this. Not being the biggest fan of Hammer, I always felt Amicus a more competent stable (neither really produced a film that was actually frightening, but they could be entertaining, and Amicus were glossy and lurid.) This one is a little-known piece that always gets bad reviews but I happen to like it. Firstly, it has a splendid cast. Secondly, the camerawork is something to behold, the sickly lurid colours blending in with the gorgeous period costumes and attractive, dramatic locations. There is also a little more going on here than meets the eye. Perhaps a subtle nod to the Glamis Castle story...? There's a little bit of class war going on, and despite its vivid rape scene I can't help feeling this isn't quite the exploitation movie it appears. For an early 70s movie it does at least treat the issue seriously; the effect it has on the victim and the fact that no measures can atone for it are believable.

A word to the excellent music, beautiful but interspersed with a spooky zither. And Geoffrey Whitehead is very good. The graveyard climax is pretty powerful too, and the closing shot as a camera wanders an empty room to the Bible is a cut above what one expects from this genre. The bad points are the tacky severed hand, the occasional Grand Guignol hamminess and the fact that the film does rather overplay it's hand...it spends so long building up to its revelation that by then it will always be a let down.

And one other criticism...Catherine recovers from her wedding night ordeal ridiculously quickly, which totally contradicts the film's central premise. Still, the open window symbolism and the Malleus Mallificarum references are neat, as is the wonderful scene of Charles standing by the window as the snow falls and reading the lines from Milton's Comus. This film honestly isn't as bad as you may think and you could certainly do alot worse on a dark winter evening!

British film company Amicus were the masters of the horror anthology, but they also produced single plot movies, this being one. Here we have a delightfully Gothic tale about a curse, haunted paintings and a crawling, severed hand. The film is very well shot, has lovely sets and boasts a very fine cast. However it is not the "gory horror" that the newspaper TV guide described back in the 1980's when I first watched it, it is also slow at times. Perhaps this was a short story that has been stretched to 90 minutes, it sometimes feels like it. But is does have some effective horror moments, plus there is a rape scene which I found to be the most shocking part, so not suitable for kids. Many years ago when I was attending college one of the bus drivers was a spitting image of Silas the woodsman, we did chuckle about that! Certainly not one of the best Amicus movies but still an enjoyable late night horror.