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.

As far as the Hammer Dracula films go, Scars of Dracula is among neither the best or worst of them, if anything it's bang in the middle in my opinion. Horror of Dracula is the best of the series(as well as being one of Hammer's classics), with Brides of Dracula and Dracula: Prince of Darkness being the best of the follow-ups, but Scars of Dracula is better than all the Hammer Dracula films that followed.

If Scars of Dracula can be summed up in one phrase, it would be 'decent but could have been much more.' The story has its great parts certainly and kudos to the film for incorporating details from the book which few of the sequels did. It however does drag quite badly and has too much padding that had very little to do with the film. The script is at best mediocre and at worst shoddy, some parts are far too talky, and there's some silliness, vaguely explored ideas and sometimes tedious melodrama(like Dracula Has Risen from the Grave but worse).

The special effects do look dreadfully fake, especially the bats that look laughable even by today's standards. Scars of Dracula generally is not a bad-looking film at all, but it was at this point where the Hammer Dracula films started getting cheaper in comparison to the earlier films. While the acting is fine on the whole, Dennis Waterman did nothing for me, he is incredibly bland and while he looks and sounds right at home in 1970s London he looks and sounds completely out of place here.

Scars of Dracula has some highly atmospheric sets(especially Dracula's castle, which is like a character all by itself), is very stylishly shot and has wonderfully moody lighting. Roy Ward Baker's direction is decent, having the right amount of suspense and style if never erasing memories of Terrence Fisher, whose direction had more colour and atmosphere. James Bernard's score booms with intensity without being intrusive, while also having a rich lushness without becoming too sentimentalised. Scars of Dracula is very high in atmosphere, with a great sense of dread and suspenseful mystery throughout, it's also one of the the goriest and most violent of the series but not in a way that feels cheap or excessive. There are some memorable scenes, with the standouts being the powerful opening, the visually striking scene of Dracula climbing the castle walls and Dracula's demise, which is one of the most memorable of the series.

With the exception of Waterman, the cast do a solid job, even if the antagonists make a better impression. Christopher Matthews is reasonably likable in the screen-time he has, and Jenny Hanley is charming and natural as well as displaying a scene-stealing cleavage. Michael Ripper brings crusty and poignant demeanour to a character that could easily have been forgettable, and Michael Gwynn is good as the Priest. Klove and Dracula however steal the show. Patrick Troughton's Klove, sporting some very memorable eyebrows, is skin-crawlingly creepy, and I did find myself rooting ever so slightly for him. Christopher Lee has more screen-time and dialogue than the rest of the Hammer Dracula films featuring him, which is great considering that generally his screen-time and amount of dialogue were lessoning with each instalment, and he absolutely relishes that in a powerful and positively blood-curdling performance. Some have said that he was losing interest and that he considered this film the worst of the series, but it didn't come over that way to me, besides Lee was too great and conscientious an actor to show that.

Overall, decent but could have been much more; Hammer's fifth Dracula film out of eight ranks right in the middle personally. 6/10 Bethany Cox

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.

The last period Hammer horror film with Dracula. The story isn't really that good--just a bunch of young, good-looking, talentless young actors getting involved with Dracula (Christopher Lee).

There are MANY things wrong with this film: 1) The plot is slight and heavily padded (even at 90 minutes) 2) There are some ridiculously fake rubber bats 3) The special effects are dreadful 4) With two exceptions the acting is even worse than usual for a Hammer film 5) Dracula stabs a woman vampire to death (why???) with an obviously fake knife and THEN drinks her blood. How could a knife kill a vampire? And WHY did he kill her?

This is considered the worst Lee Dracula film. I disagree. I think it's one of the best. For one thing it is easily the goriest Hammer Dracula film (it was the first one to get an R rating here in the US) with some mild nudity thrown in. The violence is strong and savage and played to the hilt by Lee. Also there are two sequences that come directly from Bram Stoker's original Dracula novel--Dracula sleeping in a room with no way in or out--except a window; and when Dracula climbs UP the castle wall from window to window. It was great seeing Hammer at least (for once) TRYING to get some of Stoker's creation on screen. Also Patrick Troughton is very good as Dracula's servant Klove and even Christopher Matthews has a few moments as the doomed Paul. But Lee's acting is the main reason to see this. He has more screen time and dialogue in this than any of the other Draculas and he just gives out an incredible performance. You can't take your eyes off him when he's on screen.

Supposedly Lee and director Roy Ward Baker HATED this film (they blamed Hammer management for forcing them) but they shouldn't. It's very scary and well-done. Recommended.

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