|Page 4 of 5:||    |
|Index||47 reviews in total|
Last classic in the Hammer's Dracula series, because it was the last
film set in the right Victorian/Gothic milieu: 19th century fairytale
Transylvania of castles, peasants, pretty girls and adorable rubber
bats. No cheap Sax Rohmer pastiches or boring martial arts films! Scars
is sometimes criticized for it's violence - I felt it very odd, that
Kim Newman, who never abhorred gore or fought for cleaner films, was so
negative for this film's (unnecessary, but sporadic and unrealistic)
violence and "immorality" (?)! Come on, in the world of
the sick crap like horror and exploitation , Hammer's richly romantic fruitcakes are breath of fresh air! James Bernard's score is lovely, perfect icing of the cake.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
If you want to see Dr. Who getting tortured, run, don't walk, to "Scars of Dracula". The second Dr. Who, Patrick Traughton, plays Dracula's manservant in this delightfully sadistic but strangely flat Dracula film. In one fine sequence, Christopher Lee, not happy with the good Dr.'s work, whips him until he's down and out. It's an uncharacteristically vicious scene for a Hammer Drac film, but consistent with this particular entry. Story is simple. A couple arrives at Castle Dracula searching for the man's missing brother. No points for guessing what became of the poor sod. The castle exteriors here are terrible. It looks like a model shrouded in cigarette smoke. Dracula performs a spider-like climb up one of the castle's exterior walls in one spectacular sequence, and there's a spot of mystery about a room nobody can access. Unfortunately, the film, despite its sadistic tone, is very slow and boring at times, and Lee is given even less screen time as usual. I always loved the original poster art and the grim title. Shame about the pacing.
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!
A young couple is forced to tangle with the great fanged one(Christopher Lee)when they search for the young man's brother, who has been too much of a ladies man. Plenty of screams, cleavage, fang work, cleavage, lovely looking women and did I say cleavage? My favorite scene is when Lee enters the room and says "I am Dracula".(No s--t)! For vampire and 'Drac' fans this will be a kick. Other cast members:Jenny Hanley, Christopher Matthews, Dennis Waterman, Wendy Wellman and the ever present Michael Ripper.
Many people seem to dislike this episode from the Dracula series and I can't figure out why. Is it because some find the special effects lame? If that's their complaint it definitely doesn't make sense. The Hammer studios, at least as far as I know, never tried to convince the audience with many special effects. They mainly relied on their cast, directors, settings and suspense; this one has all of these great qualities. In my opinion SOD is even one of the better Hammer movies made in 70´s. There is a lot of more horror in it than in `Lust for a vampire' or `Twins of evil' to name a few titles from that era. SOD comes close to the `Horror of Dracula' and is certainly far better than `Prince of darkness'. Christopher Lee speaks a lot of lines in this episode, looks more evil than the devil himself and he is obviously enjoying it. You know what I mean after you have seen Dracula `petting' his assistant. There is one real weak spot in this film tough because it is not explained what caused Dracula to resurrect after his dead in `Taste the blood of Dracula'. Don't let other reviewers misguide you for you will miss one of the finest and original Hammer flicks ever made!
'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?
Grotesque effects and the star presence of Christopher Lee do little more
than salve the wounds these "Scars" will leave on the average audience --
for gothic horror fans equipped with a dose of patience only. A few moments
are exciting, but the script is not subtle, its characters unconvincingly
foolish. Dracula's servant does a bit to lighten things up with memorable
acting. The plot and story are very predictable (basically the only "plot"
is a series of people coming and going from Dracula's castle, in search of
the first missing visitor).
OK direction, but more care should have been taken in editing out the boring parts (perhaps before production began). Poor results.
Oh boy, what can I tell you? Well, it's a sequel to many other sequels
from the Hammer House of Horror.
As I warned you in my opening: "Never wake the Count while he's asleep". You may pay the consequences by watching a harmless and almost motionless Count Dracula, much less threatening than in his heydays.
I must admit that I am reviewing it because I am a faithful follower of Christopher Lee's career and as such it's part of his resume.
Unfortunately, someone decided to make him speak in this one. Mind you, his voice is commanding as a bass and very suggestive, but Dracula seldom talks, he just commands by hypnotizing his victims.
As the story goes, a young fellow has in mind to travel and stops at Castle Dracula for a night. Wrong choice of time and place...
Very soon a lovely (and voluptuous) girl begs him for help in order to escape the Count's attentions. The guy agrees and attempts to make love to the girl who very soon grows fond of his jugular and would like to take a bite, suddenly though, Dracula appears and a blood bath starts.
Change of scene. Next morning, everything is normal, no girl, no blood, but the young guy is obsessed with the idea of destroying Dracula.
He's so stupid as to lower himself, aided by the Count's manservant, into Dracula's Crypt. Guess what? He lands up spiked as a lamp post...
From there it's up to you to guess what else happens.
The attempt as being a "Gothic" version of the tale is not enough anymore. If the younger generations of the Victorian Age, as depicted in this movie, were truly such a bunch of stumbling and idiotic morons (which obviously they weren't), no wonder I was cheering all the time for the Count.
It's a mindless chapter in the Dracula/Lee series, only suited for those who follow the actor or are absolute fans of Dracula movies and must have it in their collections.
Otherwise stick to "Horror of Dracula", "Dracula, Prince of Darkness" and "Dracula Has Risen from the Grave". And only because it's the ideal continuation of the latter one, also "Taste the Blood of Dracula". But then just put a stake through his heart and throw the carcass to the wolves...
The three last installments including "Dracula, A.D. 1972" and "The Satanic Rites of Dracula" were just pale examples of movies made for the 1968 rebellious generation who wanted to part with the past and despised any authoritative figure, including The Prince of Darkness himself...
Unfortunately for them Dracula still lives and does what he does while they just became older if not ridiculously decrepit in their utopia views. Some even went so far that they replaced the old establishment with a much more devious and ruthless one. Exactly what Dracula stands for: bloodsucking and exploitation.
Think about it, it's very emblematic.
If despite all that, you still love the blood sucking Count, then serve yourselves, but be warned, it's really what you pay for...
But not great. It is actually pretty violent and bloody compared to most HAMMER films. LEE is good as Dracula. Good Atmosphere, as always, but it does lack and shows that Hammer was going downhill. Still worth checking out though.
As a big fan of Dracula movies, I enjoyed this movie. That said, as an
objective movie viewer, I can say this film wasn't anything great. Just
Many like to rip on the later Christopher Lee Dracula film "Satanic Rites of Dracula", but I actually found that far more entertaining.
Nontheless, if you are a fan of Dracula films, this is still worth watching. Casual viewers may want to pick another Vamp flick.
|Page 4 of 5:||    |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|External reviews||Parents Guide||Plot keywords|
|Main details||Your user reviews||Your vote history|