IMDb > Scars of Dracula (1970) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Scars of Dracula
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
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
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Scars of Dracula More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 4 of 6: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [Next]
Index 58 reviews in total 

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Average/ok for genre fans

6/10
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?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Just Can't Trust Your Servants Anymore

5/10
Author: jcholguin (jcholguin@lycos.com) from los angeles
31 May 2003

Having seen most of the Hammer "Dracula" series with Christopher Lee as the Count, I always look for something different to catch my interest. For Dracula, outside of a very unusual ending for him, it was a standard Vampire feature with one exception, the man servant Klove. Patrick Troughton played the character Klove and gave this film that little extra which made watching this film a worthwhile venture. Klove cherishes a small picture with a picture of a young woman left by one of the victims of the Count. He falls in love with this woman. One day, this woman arrives at the castle, Dracula. He is told by his master the Count to remove her cross from her neck when she is sleeping. Poor Klove, he must decide to help his love or Dracula, he chooses the woman. Dracula punishes Klove with a whipping and burning on his back leaving huge scars. He still manages to help the woman escape the castle. But the woman returns and Klove must chose again. Klove is the only person with the knowledge of how to defeat his master. Will Klove chose love over the pain? A good performance by Troughton. Enjoy!

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

The Best of the Hammer "Draculas"

9/10
Author: zardoz-13 from United States
11 October 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

"A Night to Remember" director Roy Ward Baker helmed the liveliest "Dracula" sequel, "Scars of Dracula," with Christopher Lee reprising the role for the fifth time in the Hammer Films franchise. "Scars of Dracula" followed "Taste the Blood of Dracula" but preceded "Dracula, 1972 A.D." For the record, Dracula's groveling custodian bears most of those titular scars. Whether he went by his real name Anthony Hinds or his pseudonym John Elder, Hinds/Elder penned a screenplay far more ambitious and audacious in its scope, violence, horror, and sex than earlier "Dracula" movies. Mind you, despite its cheesy bat massacre, "Scars of Dracula" qualifies as the bloodiest Hammer film. Moreover, "Scars of Dracula" was the first to receive an R-rating in the United States. Dracula punishes his disobedient caretaker by applying the red-hot sword to his back. Further, the caretaker accepts his punishment as if he approved of being punished. Can we say masochism? Of course, the bats are hopelessly phony. Nevertheless, the scene where a bat mauls the face of the priest in the church like piranha is terrific. The clergy had come under increasing attack in 1970s movies. This scene alone should have landed the film on the video nasties list in Great Britain. Indeed, "Scars of Dracula" is the most supernatural of the Hammer "Dracula" franchise. Ultimately, it is the one "Dracula" film from Hammer where the Count boasts more screen time than usual. He also has a fiery death scene that suggests greater powers were at work to vanquish him since mere mortals could not finish him off. Inevitably, this quasi-invincibility adds stature to Christopher Lee's immortal creation

The opening gambit could easily have provided material for an entire movie. Although it somewhat picks up the narrative thread from the previous London-based Dracula opus, "Scars of Dracula" takes place primarily in rural Europe as earlier "Dracula" movies. A farmer's daughter has been killed by a vampire. The introductory credits appear as her sad father totes her lifeless remains to the village. The inn landlord (Michael Ripper of "The Creeping Flesh") assembles the villagers. They load up both sufficient fuel and timber, march Dracula's castle through the woods, trick Dracula's custodian into letting them inside and set fire to the premises. Of course, their well-intentioned efforts avail them little because Dracula rests in a chamber with no door, accessible only a high window. Ironically, before he allowed them to approach the castle, the priest uttered a prayer to protect his flock. When they return triumphantly from Dracula's castle the priest congratulates them on the success of their mission. "We must give thanks," the priest rejoices, "thanks to our savior for his protection." The villagers agree. The priest turns to leave with them. "Let us go to our church and tell our loved ones they are safe." Initially, before he supervised their departure, the landlord ordered his wife Marie (television actress Margo Boht) to gather the rest of the village into the church. The last thing that the landlord could imagine has happened. No sooner have they opened the church doors than four vampire bats swoop out past them. The men discover that the rest of the villagers lay blood-splattered and dead in the house of worship. Never have so many people been slaughtered during the first ten minutes in a Hammer "Dracula!"

The resurrection scene in "Scars of Dracula" has got to be the most outrageous of the franchise. A blood-dripping vampire bat shows up (whether by devilish designs or otherwise we never learn) at the place where Dracula died in "Taste the Blood of Dracula" and pukes blood on the Count's remains. Presto, Count Dracula is reconstituted into an immaculate Christopher Lee. Let the blood-sucking begin! Meanwhile, a carefree young Lothario, Paul Carlson (Christopher Matthews of "Scream and Scream Again"), finds himself fleeing from the Burgomaster (Bob Todd of "Burke & Hare") because the Burgomaster's daughter, Alice (Delia Lindsay of "The Devil's Widow"), has accused him of wantonly having his way with her. Alice runs around with a bed sheet concealing her breasts and vagina. However, she cavorts about with her plucky buttocks bare for all-to-see in two shots as she leaves a room and romps up some stairs. The Burgomaster's men pursue Paul and he makes a momentary appearance at birthday party for a girlfriend, Sarah, and then leaps from a high window into a stagecoach that takes him off deep stumbles into the woods.

Paul has no luck finding anybody who will give him shelter. Predictably, things get worse. Eventually, he takes refuge at the worst place imaginable--Dracula's castle. Dracula is very civil to him when he arrives. Indeed, Dracula's dark-haired hostess, Tania, decides to sleep with Paul. The Count catches them in bed together and his rage at seeing what she had planned to do to Paul prompts Dracula to stab her "Psycho" style repeatedly before he quenches his lust for her blood. This is the first time that Dracula has behaved in this fashion. In "Horror of Dracula," he drove a vampire woman from sinking her fangs into Jonathan Harker. Presumably, since she had slept with him, Dracula was punishing her for cheating on him. Eventually, Paul's brother Simon (Dennis Waterman of "Man in the Wilderness") sets out to find him with Sarah Framsen (Jenny Hanley of "On Her Majesty's Secret Service") tagging along despite Simon's protests. Meantime, Paul discovers Dracula's coffin in a room that has no door. Klove (Patrick Troughton of "The Omen") explains that the Master sleeps where nobody can reach him. Baker stages a neat scene where we see Dracula leaving through the window of his room and scaling the architecture to the windows above. Actually, Bram Stoker wrote about Dracula's ability to scale walls.

"Scars of Dracula" qualifies as one of the best of the Hammer "Dracula" films.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Neither the best nor the worst of Hammer's Dracula series, 'Scars Of Dracula' is pretty average. However Christopher Lee is terrific!

Author: Infofreak from Perth, Australia
31 January 2004

'Scars Of Dracula' was the last Hammer Dracula period piece. The next in the series 'Dracula A.D. 1972' was an unsuccessful attempt to set the series in the present day, and probably the worst Hammer movie I've seen to date. 'Scars...' is much better than '1972' but not as great as 'Dracula: Prince Of Darkness', which in my opinion the best of the lot. This was Christopher Lee's fifth time playing the Count and he is just terrific. He doesn't appear for about half an hour but as soon as he does the movie kicks into gear. I also enjoyed Patrick Troughton (Dr Who #2) as Dracula's pathetic slave/servant Klove. The main reason 'Scars...' disappoints slightly is that the baddies are wonderful, but the good guys are dull. Dennis Waterman (later to find British TV fame in 'The Sweeney' and 'Minder') isn't much of a Hammer leading man, and neither is Christopher Matthews who plays his womanizing brother. The leading lady Jenny Hanley is pretty but a bit wet, and certainly not your typical Hammer vixen. Anouska Hempel IS, but she's given very little on screen time. The supporting cast includes Hammer regular Michael Ripper, and also an amusing cameo from Bob Todd who Benny Hill fans will recognize. Roy Ward Baker directed two of the best Hammer movies in 'Quatermass And The Pit' and 'The Vampire Lovers', but 'Scars Of Dracula' isn't of the same standard. Maybe with a better cast and a bigger budget it could have been improved, but as it stands I'd say it's only average. Anyway, average Hammer to me is still more entertaining than most of today's lame horror output, and how can any horror buff not get a kick out of watching Christopher Lee as Dracula?

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Yet another Dracula film from Hammer offers the usual fare

4/10
Author: planktonrules from Bradenton, Florida
20 May 2009

This film begins with perhaps the most bizarre resurrection scene in a Dracula film that I can recall. A giant cheap plastic bat hovers over the powdered remains of Drac and then the bat starts puking blood on the remains--at which point the body reconstitutes itself. Weird AND stupid due to the $3.98 spent on "special effects".

After this inauspicious beginning, the killing naturally begins. The nearby townspeople prove that they've never read any vampire novels or seen any Dracula films. They attack the castle (a good idea) and they light it on fire (a dumb and pointless idea). No stake in the heart, no holy water, no garlic,...not even a flaming bag of poo on the front steps...nothing other than tossing some torches into the castle. And, surprise, surprise, this ticks off the Price of Darkness (duh)--resulting in a splendid little massacre. And, considering the half-hearted attack on the vampire, I think they kind of deserved this.

What follows is a tiny bit of gratuitous nudity (heck, it WAS made in 1970 as apparently they'd just invented sex) and the story itself finally gets going. What follows is pretty typical of the Hammer Film Studios Dracula films. Christopher Lee is only rarely in the film and much of it consists of people stumbling along looking for their missing friend until the final confrontation which ends the vampire menace forever....or at least until the next film!

Aside from a servant for Dracula who actually manages to betray his master, there really isn't a lot innovative or memorable about the film. In fact, the end of the film is quite stupid and contradictory. First, the fake bat returns for one of the silliest death scenes in memory (the priest). Second, how Drac dies defies all lore from previous films and maybe makes the half-hearted attempt by the villagers seem not so dumb after all. The only reason this silly film, even merits a 4 is because of the exquisite supporting performance by the blonde lady's boobs--which play an amazingly prominent role in the film!!

Considering Hammer had already essentially made the the same film many times already, there isn't a lot of reason to see this particular film unless you are insanely compulsive (like me) and you want to see every Hammer film--even the highly repetitive and derivative ones.

Was the above review useful to you?

Classic 70's horror

10/10
Author: jacobjohntaylor1 from Barry's bay Ontario Canada
31 July 2015

This is a sequel to Taste the blood of Dracula. It is one of the best sequels ever. This very scary. It has great special effects. It also has a great story line. This movie as great acting. Dracula is resurrected. And continues his rain of terror. This is one of the scariest movies ever made. If you like really scary movies. Then you need to see this movie. It is very intense. Dracula A.D 1972 is a little better. The satanic rites of Dracula is also a little better. This is the sixth hammer Dracula movie and it is scarier then the first five. This is scary then The Exorcist. IF this movie does not scary you then no movie will. This movie is a must see.

Was the above review useful to you?

Below par.

5/10
Author: Nigel P
12 July 2015

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Although Hammer's horror films were becoming more prolific by 1970, there was a definite downturn in their fortunes: audiences were falling out of love for their modest-budgeted Gothic tales.

Released shortly after 'Taste the Blood of Dracula', the drop in quality for this latest offering is noticeable, both in budget (there is a very studio-bound feel to Dracula's castle for example) and in interesting new ideas (Dracula's life-saving blood-spewing personal bat is particularly unsuccessful).

Rather than an ongoing story, 'Scars' is more a series of set-pieces. The exploits of rakish Paul Carson are directed like an episode of the lame sex-comedy 'Confessions of…' film series. We then have the slaughter of a church full of villagers we never get to know, various sadistic acts by Dracula (as well as a partially successful scene of him crawling snake-like down the walls of his castle, lifted from the novel – presumably keeping Christopher Lee happy) and finally the least convincing climactic dispatch of the Count by lightning as Dennis Waterman and a badly dubbed Jenny Hanley watch on.

Although it gives Lee more to do than most sequels in this series, it is nevertheless a palpably tired offering and wastes most of its cast. Hammer were surely aware of the paucity of ideas on display and decided to make a fairly big change with their next Dracula film.

Was the above review useful to you?

Sort Of Dracula

6/10
Author: GroovyDoom from Haddonfield, IL
2 September 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This is a very dark entry in the Hammer Dracula series, with an emphasis on gore, sadism, and violence that was never quite so strong in the other films. On the other hand, there is no engaging story here, such as in "Dracula Has Risen From The Grave", and the characters are only marginally likable. I still haven't figured out why villages continue to exist within shouting distance of Dracula's castle. If you lived in terror of sundown, wouldn't it be simpler to just relocate to a village that did not feature a vampire as a neighbor? In this one, a man on the run for dallying with a burgomeister's daughter ends up taking refuge at Dracula's castle, where things predictably don't go well for him. When he does not return, his brother and his fiancé come looking for him, and they find out the hard way why people in those parts aren't keen on the name Dracula.

The biggest problem with this movie is, the story is too slim, and it reduces the thing just to series of set pieces. Things happen, but there is very little reason for any of it, especially a scene where Dracula flips out on a lady and stabs her to death with a dagger. Why would Dracula do that? As once before, Dracula has a manservant here named Klove, whose loyalties are constantly shifting throughout the film, for no apparent reason. Nothing gels. Probably the biggest liability is the glaring absence of Peter Cushing, who would have lent a lot more credence to this silly movie. With Lee and Cushing together, it would have been a much different story.

However, there is fun to be had. There is a very strong atmosphere of dread and doom here, especially since so many of the characters don't survive to the final reel of the film. A particularly nasty massacre of women and children (inside a church, no less!) sticks with this viewer. The sets are well done and very spooky in a Halloween sort of way. There are several extremely detailed vampire bats on hand here, and although they're not technically convincing, they tear the hell out of more than a few people in the movie. There's also some abundant female nudity on hand here for fans of the ladies. Christopher Lee holds the movie together as the Count, proving that even with a lousy script, he still gives the filmmakers what they paid him for.

Was the above review useful to you?

His Master Is A Monster !

5/10
Author: ShootingShark from Dundee, Scotland
28 May 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

When his brother goes missing after visiting a remote castle, Simon and his fiancée Sarah travel there to try and find him. Unfortunately for them, the missing man has been a guest of that undead fiend, Count Dracula …

This is the sixth of Hammer's nine Dracula movies, and the fifth to feature Big Chris as the caped varlet. It's not the best one, but as with almost all the British studio's films it's well made, scary, enjoyable and atmospheric. The star attraction is of course Lee, who is as hypnotic and menacing as ever in his signature role, but the rest of the cast are fairly good too. Waterman (later the star of seminal TV cop show The Sweeney) is a solid lead, Troughton has a lot of fun in the Renfield role, cheerfully hacking up bodies, and Ripper gets more screen time than usual as the innkeeper, a part he took in several other Hammer films. Hanley is a bit of a wet blanket (and dubbed) as the girlfriend, but is well-qualified in the heaving bosom stakes, and Hamilton, Hempel and Lindsay are all saucy fun. The script isn't very exciting and there are some dodgy bat attacks, but overall there's a terrific sense of dread, lush sets, great day-for-night photography, a strong woodwind score by regular composer James Bernard and plenty of gruesome scares. Fine fanged frolics for undead film fans.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

The worst Hammer Dracula film

Author: GusF from Ireland
26 June 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

In spite of Christopher Lee's greater than usual screen time and Patrick Troughton's presence, this is by far my least favourite of the Hammer Dracula series. It's a rather uninspired affair. It seems like a hodge-podge of the best bits from the previous five films. It's basically Hammer by numbers. This is an observation rather than a criticism but it's a bit odd that this is the third consecutive "Dracula" film with a major character named Paul! Dennis Waterman is badly miscast as the very post and boring Simon Carlson. It's probably most notable for being Hammer stalwart Michael Ripper's final horror film for the company. He's as good as ever in his rather lacklustre swansong.

On the bright side, Christopher Lee is still as wonderfully creepy and entertaining as Count Dracula as usual, in spite of the fact that he had seemingly tired of the role by this point. I liked the fact that it hearkened back to the novel (as well as the first film) in portraying Dracula as an elegant host. This is the first time that he has actually said more than a few, short lines to someone (other than one of his minions) since his conversation with Jonathan Harker in the original film. His death scene was awesome, the best sequence in the film. Patrick Troughton is excellent as is Michael Gwynn as the priest. I've never seen Jenny Hanley in anything before and I was struck by how much she resembled her mother Dinah Sheridan.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 4 of 6: [Prev][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