Scars of Dracula

Scars Of Dracula is generally regarded very poorly among Hammer fans, which is a shame. Yes, the decreased budget results in less impressive sets, and there is a bit more blood and violence than usual, but the film has an energy which was somewhat lacking in Dracula Has Risen From The Grave and Taste The Blood Of Dracula.

The script is little more than a rehash of Dracula and Dracula Prince Of Darkness, but there is more action than any others in the series, and several memorable sequences, including the discovery of bodies horribly gored by bats in a church [replete with Lucio Fulci style zooms into the nasty bits], Dracula climbing up a wall a la Bram Stoker, and a vampire seduction ending with Dracula stabbing the woman to death. Atmosphere is a little lacking ,and it's odd that no continuity has been attempted to link it with the previous entry. Christopher Lee has more screen time than usual, although his makeup here is over done. James Bernard's music, though, is as vibrant as ever.

With a much stronger supernatural element than the other Draculas, this is still an enjoyable entry, probably the third best in the series.

MORD39 RATING: *** out of ****

In my opinion, SCARS OF DRACULA is the most satisfying entry of all the Hammer Dracula's, even squeaking past the revered HORROR OF DRACULA.

People like to pick on the reduced budget, but I have never felt that the sets look too bad when all is said and done. The only thing that "Count's" is that Dracula is given more screen time than usual and is thoroughly evil and sadistic.

Sure, it's not an original idea having another man stranded at Dracula's castle, but it works well. A point that not many bring out is that there are also elements of Bram Stoker's novel which are utilized in the film, and for that alone I give it a slight nudge over HORROR OF DRACULA.

I think that this film might appear more to those who are not familiar with Hammer's other Dracula films, as they won't have any prejudices. This is a good, solid Dracula film.

In this movie we see Dracula burn his servant with a hot sword and stab his female vampire slave to death with a knife.

Christopher Lee had said this was the weakest and most unconvincing of the series. Perhaps he said that before "AD 72" and Satanic Rites" came out? He commented that the makeup was wrong. Was it "Vampires do NOT wear pancake!"? He didn't like the way they had him "biting" the victim. Biting more than once is chewing, is it not? He also complained that instead of writing a story around Dracula, they write it then try to fit Dracula into it.

This movie did have its moments. At least they put in a Stoker scene with him climbing the walls, though it looked a bit weird. He was bent over hobbling on the wall like he had something heavy on his back. Imagine him crawling up the way they showed Langela (Dracula 1979) doing it - from that angle. That would have been sweet.

The bat looked fake, the knife looked rubber, the burning castle looked like an obvious miniature with a big candle in it, the lightning hitting Dracula at the end was an obvious stunt man with a really bad (Michael Myers?) mask and the church scene after the bat attack was disturbing. I agree that the supporting actors were a bit over-matched against the Count. There is no expert vampire hunter in this, just two brothers (one being the third vampire hunter named "Paul" in the series) and that weak priest. I'll give this 5 stars out of 10, an average rating.

A bat drools blood on the smouldering corpse of its master to revive him from the dead, where Dracula causes terror to the locals and passing travellers. A young man Paul fleeing from the authorities, disappears when he drops by Dracula's castle. Soon his brother Simon and his finance Sarah have gone looking for him, where they encounter unwelcoming locals and learn that Paul has passed through to Dracula's castle.

Out of the Hammer Dracula films I've watched (which would be Horror of Dracula, Dracula - Prince of Darkness, Dracula Has Risen from the Grave, Taste the blood of Dracula and The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires), this particular entry (the sixth) would have to be the weakest, but not entirely bad. What stands out is how sadistic it is in its nauseating actions and grisly make-up, where the red, red blood runs freely and the shocks are explicit. Also flesh and sexual activity is more fruitful. There's no denying this is one dark and mean-spirited Gothic film, held together by its scorchingly sombre atmosphere and some sensationally brooding set-pieces of striking suspense and images. These effective moments mainly derived from the original novel. Director Roy Ward Baker does a sound job, even though it can get patchy. However the main problem is that basic story and wilted script doesn't really build upon anything and it gets rather repetitive, senseless and creates drawn out feel. The ending is somewhat anti-climatic too. It's hard to escape the cheap look, as the sets are a mixture of cardboard structures, nice oil paintings as background features from the castle and plenty of rubber bats dangling from strings. While the woodlands surrounding the castle where forebodingly captured. The intrusive flair seems to be lurking there, but not with the same energy. Clocking in is a routine, frenzy music score. Christopher Lee seems to be going through the motions with a called in performance, but his presence features strongly to forgive that. The supporting cast are capable in their deliveries. Christopher Mathews, Dennis Waterman, and a stunning Jenny Hanley are likable in their parts. Patrick Troughton, Wendy Hamilton, Michael Ripper and Michael Gwynn also are terrific.

Bloody, nasty and dread-filled, but due to its languid pace it nothing more than a modest attempt.

Roy Ward Baker's "Scars Of Dracula" of 1970 is not only by far the goriest and most violent of the awesome Dracula movies from Hammer Studios, it is also one of the best sequels. Count Dracula, played once again with greatness by Christopher Lee, is more vengeful, blood-thirsty and sadistic than ever, and the (once again) excellent eerie Hammer atmosphere makes "Scars Of Dracula" an must-see for Horror fans.

The story is, admittedly, not too elaborate, in some minor parts the script has its flaws, and the film has some cheesy moments, but what the hell, it remains suspenseful and creepy and top-notch horror entertainment anyway! As mentioned above, Count Dracula is crueler than ever. His thirst for blood has not only increased, but he also has a big desire for torturous punishments and brutality in general. His powers include the ability to control animals (predominantly bats). Count Dracula has, of course, always been a scary and evil villain in the Hammer films, but in "Scars Of Dracula" he is the Devil himself!

The movie begins with Dracula's (admittedly slightly cheesy) resurrection when a bat drops blood on his rotting ashes. After some girls fall victim to the vampire, angry villagers try to burn the count's castle, and have to notice that they are not capable of fighting the Prince of Darkness, who immediately takes terrible revenge… When a young man has to flee his town after spending the night with the burgomaster's daughter, he comes to the area where Dracula is striking terror into people's hearts, people who are living in constant fear and who are therefore anything but hospitable towards strangers…

"Scars Of Dracula" is, in my opinion, one of the greatest Dracula-sequels from the Hammer Studios. The original of 1958 remains unmatched, of course, but out of the sequels, "Scars of Dracula" is certainly one of the creepiest and most atmospheric. The violence is more graphic than in any of the other Dracula movies from Hammer, and although some effects in the movie may look a bit fake, the gory parts are very well made, and the great score by James Bernard makes the whole thing even creepier. The movie may have some minor flaws (which certainly didn't bother me), but it is an extremely creepy and highly atmospheric flick, which I highly recommend to Horror fans. Hammer fans can't afford to miss this one. 8/10