A young man is murdered while spending the night at Count Dracula's castle, prompting his brother to come to the small town where all the traces end to look for him.A young man is murdered while spending the night at Count Dracula's castle, prompting his brother to come to the small town where all the traces end to look for him.A young man is murdered while spending the night at Count Dracula's castle, prompting his brother to come to the small town where all the traces end to look for him.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
- Farmer
- (as Morris Bush)
- Girl at Party
- (uncredited)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
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
A bat hovers over a concrete slab, blood frothing from its mouth, the drops of which are reinvigorating the Prince Of Darkness. Yes, Dracula is back, bloodier than usual and even kind of chatty! Directed by Roy Ward Baker and starring Christopher Lee in his fifth outing as Dracula, Scars Of Dracula, hamstrung by low budget as it is, is one of the better efforts in the Hammer Horror Dracula cycle.
Standard rules apply, buxom wenches are ripe for slaughter and the guys are a mixture of village yokels and posh gentlemen. Lee as ever is charming and carrying his air of nastiness, and the story leads us nicely to a castle top finale of some standing. There's also some nice visual flourishes and memorable scenes along the way. Blood drips onto white candles that segue into red ones and Drac walks up walls. While the redness in the piece has never more been so vivid thanks to Moray Grant's impacting photography. The cast reads like a who's who of British television, you got a Doctor Who {Patrick Troughton with the worlds scariest eyebrows}, Minder {a badly miscast Dennis Waterman}, a Bond girl and presenter of Magpie {the lovely Jenny Hanley} and Lord Melbury from Fawlty Towers {Michael Gwynn}.
Safe & solid Hammer Horror fare that just about rises above the normality of the script. 6.5/10
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.
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.
Did you know
- TriviaDuring an interview, Christopher Lee expressed his well-known frustration with this film: "I was a pantomime villain. Everything was over the top, especially the giant bat whose electrically motored wings flapped with slow deliberation as if it were doing morning exercises."
- GoofsEarly is the film as Paul is aboard the out-of-control horse carriage (with the white horses) - watch as the cameraman flees out of their thundering path thinking, quite possibly, he will be run over.
- Quotes
The Priest: I'll explain. You must give me time to prepare you for what we both have to do.
Simon Carlson: Both?
The Priest: Yes, both of us. Without my guidance you'd never survive the ordeal. Without your courage I could not even attempt it. But now there's nothing either of us can do until daybreak.
- Alternate versionsFor the UK cinema and video versions, the British Board of Film Classification trimmed the killing of the priest by bats and the stabbing of the female vampire by Dracula.
- ConnectionsEdited into Lust for a Vampire (1971)
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- Las cicatrices de Drácula
- Filming locations
- Scratchwood, Hertfordshire, England, UK(Woodland scenes)
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- £200,000 (estimated)
- Runtime
- 1h 35m(95 min)
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 1.66 : 1(original & intented ratio/open matte, European theatrical release)