O Grito da Caveira

Yes, the acting in this isn't that great. Yes, the director plays one of the characters, which is pretty much always a bad sign for a horror movie (Glen or Glenda, Eegah, Incredibly Strange Creatures, etc.). Yes, the entire storyline is fantastically predictable and has been done a thousand times. And yeah, the special effects are really, really terrible. And no, it did not scare me enough that I was able to take advantage of their free funeral offer (Does that still hold for DVD's?) But other than that, it really wasn't that bad. So, a rich woman who was formerly in a sanatorium moves into her new husband's old home. His old wife had died there, in a way that the pastor takes every care to explain is suspicious. Then she starts seeing creepy things while her husband is away all the time. I guess there aren't really spoilers here because I'm not TECHNICALLY telling you anything, but anyone who's watched enough of these movies should know the rest by heart. But really, except for a few moments and one really annoying gardener, this manages to keep up a pretty good atmosphere. I thought that it wasn't bad for what it was. Definitely not 2.7

My sister & I had searched for this movie to see it again after we had nightmares for weeks after seeing this movie some 35+ years ago. I finally founding looking in a database in a video store computer and ordered it. You have to lighten up your screen some, to see all that goes on, and parts of it are too funny now---but it's not a bad premise for a scary story, and images like the skull in the bridal gown I will never forget. I now have to find the 1973 version of this film. I'm curious also to see the double feature---the DVD has a schlocky 70's vampire movie as the 2nd feature. So seeing it this summer after waiting over 30 years for it? It wasn't that bad.

This is an underrated film that seems to get more than a fair share of movie bashing. Some of this might be due to the warning at the start of the movie. Viewers are offered a free funeral if they die of fright during the showing of the movie. That offer does raise your expectations to an unrealistic level. There is no place to go from there but down. The scenes themselves are not ghastly or bloody. It isn't supposed to be that kind of a scary movie. "The Screaming Skull" is more of a psychological thriller and mystery movie. You have to remember the time this came out. Back in the late 50s, in a dark theater this was scary stuff. Compared to today's movies it's a little slow and is overshadowed by the graphic nature of modern horror films. This movie wasn't badly done. It's just a little outdated. It's still a decent movie and will probably remain popular with the movie fans of 50s horror. I think it holds its own enough that it's still a decent horror/mystery movie but it can't live up to the warning at the beginning of the movie. Watch this one remembering when it was released and forget that warning.

OK, I could easily bash this film for its many...many flaws. Looking for scares, then steer away from The Screaming Skull. Aside from a scene where you hear knocking on a door with or by a skull, nothing in this film is even remotely chilling. The story is the biggest problem as we know what is going to happen way before it happens. No creativity here. The acting could be a lot worse though for a movie of this type. Lead actor Tony Hudson is below average, but everyone else is at least mediocre. Well, that means the other four in the cast of the entire film. Peggy Webber, busting out literally, plays a woman that was scarred seeing her parents drown as a child. Now, she moves into her new husband's estate where his wife died under questionable means. We then find out he has no money of his own and his new wife is loaded and has a history of mental hysteria. Where is this film going I wonder? Though it is short on scares, has grossly cheap special effects, and a story with virtually no "flesh," The Screaming Skull is one of those fun, bad movies to watch. A lot of other viewers were bored with all the talking, but I found the incompetence in this film quite charming for some inexplicable reason. Director Alex Nicol, also playing the "not-quite-there" Mickey, uses what few resources he has and at the very least makes a film with some unity and flashes of mediocrity at times. I have seen much, much, much worse!

This movie is typical of the films that were around when I was a kid. We actually went to them in movie theaters or drive ins and enjoyed them. We weren't jaded by the "more special effects" mentality that exists now. I love that some guy with a few buck would at least attempt a movie like this. I never saw the MST3 group do this, but it doesn't surprise me.

Now the plot is OK. It's a classic ghost story. Drag the new wife (who has some serious issues of her own) to the house of the first wife. Throw in a mentally handicapped gardener, and a lot of secrets, and you're set to go. Where it falls apart concerns what is real and what isn't. Are we seeing the psychological destruction of the man or do these ghosts really exist? How put together are these characters?

The skull, of course, is the central image. There are some really bad images. When the skull is rolled at the young woman, it looks like a bowling ball, bumping across the carpet.

Then there are all those late at night scenes where the bride must come out of her room, walk along the balcony, wait to go down and see what is going on. And, where is that husband all the time.?

The ending is pretty good. There should have been more of that all along instead of a plastic skull being used for horror effects. The acting is pretty stiff, but all these B horror films had pretty poor acting. I'd still recommend it.