IMDb > Scars of Dracula (1970) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Scars of Dracula
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Scars of Dracula More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 2 of 6:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [Next]
Index 53 reviews in total 

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

A more sadistic Dracula

Author: rams_lakers from Colorado
5 August 2004

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

"He is evil. He is the embodiment of all that is evil. He is the very Devil himself."

Author: bensonmum2 from Tennessee
7 July 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

When Paul Carlson (Christopher Matthews) goes missing, his brother Simon (Dennis Waterman) and friend Sarah Framsen (Jenny Hanley) trace his footsteps to try to find him. Their journey leads them to a small village full of inhospitable locals who will only tell the pair that Paul was last seen heading toward a nearby castle. Simon and Sarah set off for the castle unaware of the danger that awaits them. This is no ordinary castle. It's the home of Dracula. Simon and Sarah find themselves in a fight for their lives against the King of the Vampires.

Of Hammer's long list of Dracula films, Scars of Dracula is about average. It's nowhere near as good as Horror of Dracula, but it's a long way from being as bad as The Satanic Rites of Dracula. It's impossible to begin discussing any of Hammer's Dracula films without first mentioning Christopher Lee. In Scars of Dracula, Lee plays a more sadistic and evil version of the Count. In addition to the normal blood-sucking, this Dracula is not above the routine tortures of beating his servant with a whip, hanging a body from a wall, or sending his legions of bats to all but wipe out a town. It's these scenes that really make the film standout. But as much as I enjoyed the character of Dracula, as blasphemous as this will sound, it's one of Lee's weaker performances. Maybe I was reading something into his performance that wasn't there, but he came across as incredibly uninterested (which in reality he was). There's none of the menace in the eyes that I associate with Lee's Dracula. It's acting by-the-numbers as far as I could tell. It's unfortunately because Lee was always so good in the role.

Other highlights for me include Jenny Hanley as Sarah and the wall climbing scene. Hanley seemed like such a natural as the innocent, fragile Sarah. And she has some of the most expressive eyes I've noticed in a Hammer heroine. It's too bad she didn't make more films for Hammer. As for the wall climbing scenes, I believe it's the only one of its kind in any of the Hammer Dracula films. I realize that it's all done with camera tricks, but seeing Lee's Dracula climbing the side of the castle was a real treat.

Unfortunately, I found just as many negatives as I did positives in Scars of Dracula. First, the screenplay has a number of holes in it. All of the characters make it incredibly convenient for Dracula. Not once is Dracula forced to leave his castle to find a victim – they all conveniently come to him. And just how did Sarah get to the castle so fast? The same journey that took Simon and a local priest almost an entire day is covered by the distraught Sarah in a matter of what seems to be a couple of hours. Next, Simon and Paul felt too modern given the time period in which the film is set. Their mannerisms, speech, and look simply scream 1970. Finally, in the beginning of the film, Dracula is resurrected by a rubber bat drooling blood over his remains. If it's that easy for Dracula to come back to life, why didn't he use this method more often? Why go through all the hassle of a séance as in Dracula A.D. 1972 or the elaborate ceremony in Taste the Blood of Dracula? I seems like a lot of wasted effort to me.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Dracula Is Back... And More Evil Than Ever

Author: Bensch from Salzburg, Austria
9 May 2007

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

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Scars of Dracula

Author: Scarecrow-88 from United States
31 October 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Paul(Christopher Matthews), a consummate ladies' man, has the misfortune of being caught with the burgomaster's daughter by the father himself. Trying to evade his guards, Paul winds up at Dracula's castle when he can not find shelter anywhere else when his horse carriage was driven way too far from his village.

Simon(Dennis Waterman), Paul's brother, and his gorgeous girlfriend Sarah(Jenny Hanley), seek out of their village to try and find him not knowing what evil lied ahead.

This is continuing right after "Taste the Blood of Dracula" and we watch as a bat swoops over the remaining ash of the Count releasing blood from it's mouth. That very blood will revive Dracula back to his former bodily state where he can again unleash terror on the countryside using servant Klove(Patrick Troughton, "Dr Who" fans might remember him as the second Time Lord)to bring him victims. A specific bat, the one that fed the ashes of Dracula blood, does much for the Count such as killing, spying, and sending messages to it's Master. Can Dracula's reign of terror be quenched? Or, will he now have enough weapons to continue his blood-lust and evil? By far, the most sadistic and violent of the Hammer vampire films to that point, this is by far Christopher Lee's best rendition of Dracula. He's able to really be vicious and nihilistic, almost like a released animal from it's cage at times. His eyes are blood red as he prepares to take a bite out of females who wander into his midst, and his bat tears into the faces of his enemies and foes. The ending is quite a hoot involving fire which starts from a bolt of lightning as Dracula squares off with Simon.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

This series was really beginning to become stagnant at this juncture

Author: callanvass from victoria b.c canada
19 February 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

After some villagers band together and burn down Count Dracula's castle, things are peacefully quiet, until Paul Carlson stumbles across the place. Dracula offers him a place to stay, little does Paul know what awaits him. Paul is inevitably murdered. Paul's brother Simon takes his companion Sarah to go look for him. Is it just me? or are these movies really becoming indistinguishable. I love Horror of Dracula, a couple of sequels are entertaining as well, but by this point, they were completely derivative and lacking imagination. The sets are typically lavish, cinematography is fantastic, and stylish atmosphere is present as well, but it's all for naught. This one suffers from pacing issues as well. At times, it is way too talky with characters that are very uninteresting. The gore is actually OK for this sort of thing. We get a couple of people being impaled, neck bites, and bloody bat attacks. I highly doubt it will whet a gore hound's appetite, but it is decent enough for a film like this. The acting is so-so. Christopher Lee continues to hum along very well with his typical menacing style. Dennis Waterman is extremely bland as Simon, Jenny Hanley is average as the love interest. Christopher Matthews is decent as Paul. What is up with all the characters named Paul in this series?! Dracula's demise in this one is very lame, lacking any excitement. This would be the final period film in this series, moving to more of a contemporary setting with Dracula A.D. It isn't the worst, but far from the best. Worth a look, but prepare for tedium


Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Starring Jenny Hanley's Cleavage

Author: Theo Robertson from Isle Of Bute, Scotland
1 February 2014

This is considered the weakest entry of Hammer's Dracula franchise and from the outset you can see what the problem is - try and sum up the plot of the film in a one line summary ? Difficult isn't it because while several things happen they don't add up to very much at all and it suffers from the most ridiculous demise seen for Dracula in any film

The cast are fairly non descript with the exception of Patrick Troughton straight out of his three year stint as the title character in a painfully underwritten role in DOCTOR WHO , Dennis Waterman who only sticks out as he attempts and fails to do a posh voice and an Oscar worthy performance from Jenny Hanley . Actually it's not her performance that's outstanding but if the Academy had an award for " Best Cleavage Seen In A Film in 1970 " she'd have won it

Now I come to think of it the problem with the Hammer studio is that they were more interested in cleavage rather than developing a story which is not a million miles away from Hollywood who develop a story around CGI . Make your own mind as to what's preferable

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Passably made Dracula entry which is, in truth, just a rehash of earlier films in the series.

Author: Jonathon Dabell ( from Todmorden, England
28 January 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The sixth Hammer Dracula is a tired rehash of the same story told in the previous five films. The blood & gore quota has been increased somewhat - presumably Hammer's way of trying to make the film fresh and original. There's just a fraction more sexuality too, with some of the lady's outfits revealing as much cleavage as can be shown without having fully naked actresses running all over. Certainly, the film makes a point of dwelling on the more sensational aspects – we have mass murders, impalements, eyeballs hanging out, burnings, graphic neck-bitings, a frenzied stabbing, and more. For all its bloodiness and sexual suggestiveness, one question remains:- is Scars Of Dracula anything special? No, not really. Just another routinely efficient vampire flick from the Hammer production line.

Womaniser Paul Carlson (Christopher Matthews) makes a quick exit from a provincial town after being caught having his wicked way with the Burgomaster's daughter. He escapes over the frontier and ends up seeking a room for the night at a castle owned by a forbidding cloaked aristocrat named Dracula (Christopher Lee). Needless to say, nothing is heard of him again…. soon afterwards, Paul's brother Simon (Dennis Waterman) grows worried about his brother's disappearance and starts searching for him, accompanied by a beautiful lady they both admire called Sarah (Jenny Hanley). The trail inevitably leads to Castle Dracula, where the unsuspecting couple find themselves in great danger. Once again the forces of good and evil must do battle in the shadow of Dracula's castle.

Scars Of Dracula is hurt most of all by its frequent lapses in logic and continuity. Just a few examples – a). Anouska Hempel's seductive lady vampires appears in a mirror behind Paul (supposedly vampires cast no reflection). b). Dracula sleeps in front of an open window (didn't daylight destroy him in the first film, even with his eyes closed?). c). Paul dives through the roof of a carriage, smashing it beneath him, yet in the subsequent sequence the carriage roof appears completely undamaged. d). Dracula is killed by a bolt of lightning which sets him alight (when did fire become a bona fide method for disposing of vampires?) There are similar inconsistencies throughout the entire film. If we overlook these flaws, there's some fun to be had from a viewing of Scars Of Dracula. Plenty of gruesome incident is crammed into its hour and a half duration, and the film is visually quite nicely done. Some of the performances are rather good, especially Patrick Troughton (in full maniacal mode as Dracula's henchman Klove) and Michael Ripper (in a larger-than-usual role as a paranoid innkeeper). James Bernard provides rousing music – his contribution to this series cannot be overstated. Overall, this is a competent but unremarkable addition to the cycle. There are no new twists for those who've seen the other Hammer Draculas but, in its simple way, it is an efficiently crafted screamer.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

The Count clocks on for another night on the treadmill

Author: TrevorAclea from London, England
9 June 2008

The budgets were hitting rock bottom and the formula getting tired by the time Hammer persuaded Christopher Lee to don the cape yet again for 1970's Scars of Dracula. Not particularly bad though awfully over-familiar, this has the feel of everyone clocking on to work at a treadmill as yet another unwary (and in this case accidental) traveller finds himself shunned by tight-lipped superstitious locals (well, Michael Ripper and a couple of extras) and soon regretting taking advantage of the Count's hospitality in the first half while in the second half his brother (a young and badly miscast Dennis Waterman) and romantic interest Jenny Hanley go through much of the same routine in the second as they go in search of him. There's an effectively nasty surprise waiting for the villagers in the church after their early attempt to burn the Count out of house and home and there's an engagingly matter of fact just-another-day-at-work sequence where Patrick Troughton's servant discards the remnants of one of his master's unwanted brides with a hacksaw and an acid bath but this is more notable for upping the violence than improving the quality.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Typical Dracula film from Hammer Studios

Author: vtcavuoto from United States
30 December 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

"Scars of Dracula" has some interesting moments. One scene is taken directly from Bram Stoker's novel-Dracula crawling downward on the castle wall in lizard fashion. Also,Dracula kills one of his own with a knife,repeatedly stabbing his victim. Overall, the set designs and costumes are up to the high standards as all Hammer Studio horror films. The acting is good, the pace of the movie moves along well and there are suspenseful moments throughout. Christopher Lee again plays a menacing Dracula. He has an imposing presence. Another standout to me was Michael Ripper as the inn-keeper. He played in several of Hammer Studio's horror films as well. I enjoyed the ending of the film. This was a unique way for Dracula to meet his fate. A good film in Hammer's Dracula series.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Average/ok for genre fans

Author: fataloblivion from South Bend, IN
4 October 2002

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

For genre fans who appreciate Hammer Horror, Christopher Lee's acting, Victorian costuming, etc. this movie is ok/average.

Paul Carlson is a young dashing man who swoons every woman and 'gets together' with them. Escaping from the Burgemaster after 'getting together' with his daughter (very funny dialogue), our protagonist is chased out of the city of Kleineburg into the rural countryside where scared villagers hide from the wrath of Dracula and the animals he has dominion over.

Unable to find a room (and almost getting together with a barmaid), Paul arrives at Dracula's castle. Dracula, of course, welcomes the visitor. Has a room 'arranged' for him. Paul, of course, 'gets together' with Tatania, the lusty mistress of Dracula. Then all hell breaks loose.

Two interesting scenes worth seeing:

(1) There is a wonderful scene of the stereotyped igor-like man-servant cleaning up the gruesome dead body of Dracula's victim. Considering the large number of victims in his castle that SOMEBODY has to clean up the mess!

(2) Christopher Lee, as Count Dracula, has placed a sword in the fire (for torture purposes). Heated to a red-hot glow, Lee pulls the sword out of the fire and holds it in a dramatic, firey pose for a few seconds before putting it to use. 32 years later, Christopher Lee, as Count Dooku, holds his red light saber in the same position!

Paul's friends try to save him and end up in a dramatic final confrontation on the castle roof.

The ending, the ignorant, tiresome townspeople and all of the womanizing make this only average.

***SPOILER*** The ending was pathetic. Dracula gets struck by lightening and falls into the castle moat!! Come on!

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 2 of 6:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
External reviews Parents Guide Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history