Scars of Dracula (1970) User Reviews

Late nights on the blood, well just look at those eyes.

[lost-in-limbo · 6/10 · 10 June 2007]

A bat drools blood on the smouldering corpse of its master to revive him from the dead, where Dracula causes terror to the locals and passing travellers. A young man Paul fleeing from the authorities, disappears when he drops by Dracula's castle. Soon his brother Simon and his finance Sarah have gone looking for him, where they encounter unwelcoming locals and learn that Paul has passed through to Dracula's castle.

Out of the Hammer Dracula films I've watched (which would be Horror of Dracula, Dracula - Prince of Darkness, Dracula Has Risen from the Grave, Taste the blood of Dracula and The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires), this particular entry (the sixth) would have to be the weakest, but not entirely bad. What stands out is how sadistic it is in its nauseating actions and grisly make-up, where the red, red blood runs freely and the shocks are explicit. Also flesh and sexual activity is more fruitful. There's no denying this is one dark and mean-spirited Gothic film, held together by its scorchingly sombre atmosphere and some sensationally brooding set-pieces of striking suspense and images. These effective moments mainly derived from the original novel. Director Roy Ward Baker does a sound job, even though it can get patchy. However the main problem is that basic story and wilted script doesn't really build upon anything and it gets rather repetitive, senseless and creates drawn out feel. The ending is somewhat anti-climatic too. It's hard to escape the cheap look, as the sets are a mixture of cardboard structures, nice oil paintings as background features from the castle and plenty of rubber bats dangling from strings. While the woodlands surrounding the castle where forebodingly captured. The intrusive flair seems to be lurking there, but not with the same energy. Clocking in is a routine, frenzy music score. Christopher Lee seems to be going through the motions with a called in performance, but his presence features strongly to forgive that. The supporting cast are capable in their deliveries. Christopher Mathews, Dennis Waterman, and a stunning Jenny Hanley are likable in their parts. Patrick Troughton, Wendy Hamilton, Michael Ripper and Michael Gwynn also are terrific.

Bloody, nasty and dread-filled, but due to its languid pace it nothing more than a modest attempt.

Dracula's back and there's gonna be trouble!

[Smells_Like_Cheese · 6/10 · 20 February 2004]

The fifth installment into the Dracula series from the Hammer studios, Scars of Dracula. Now we are talking, this film was Rated R and we are talking some real hard core violence in this film. You thought the prior films could be scary, you haven't seen anything yet with this Dracula. Christopher Lee returns and has a lot more screen time and lines and looks more chilling than ever. I think he had to enjoy this role a little more than the sequels, at least he seemed to have a more horrifying presence than the previous sequels. There's more blood, more sex and more bats on strings. Yeah, that's the big flaw with the film, the story isn't as strong and for a series that was pretty popular, you'd think that they could afford better special effects than bats on a string! I digress; despite the flaws, I think this was the scarier sequel from the previous films. Flaws aside, Dracula is biting, stabbing, impaling and burning his victims this time and he is out for blood.

Local villagers, enraged that yet another young woman has been murdered by the Count, rise up and set fire to Castle Dracula. However, the Count is safely asleep in a solid stone crypt. Falsely accused of rape by the spurned burgomasters' daughter, libertine Paul Carlson flees the Kleinenberg authorities by jumping into a nearby coach. He is deposited near Count Dracula's mountaintop castle. Initially he is welcomed by the Count and a beautiful woman. Paul later has a liaison with the woman who concludes their lovemaking by trying to bite his neck. Dracula enters and, casually throwing off Paul's efforts to stop him, savagely stabs the woman to death. Trapped in a room high in the castle, Paul uses a line to climb down to a lower window but the line is withdrawn and he is trapped in a dark doorless room. Paul's brother Simon and Paul's fiancée Sarah Framsen come searching for him. Dracula has immediate designs on the lovely Sarah, but Klove, who has fallen in love with the young woman, helps the young couple escape. But Dracula never gives up so easily and is determined to get Sarah.

The flaws with the film besides the bats was the characters. They're just a bit more bland this time except for Paul who sadly leaves the film early. Speaking of Paul, isn't it weird how many times there has been a character named Paul in this series? Did Hammer have a thing for the name Paul? Moving on, also there's a moment where a bat attacks a priest killing him, the priest doesn't fight back at all which was unbelievable. Then Dracula commands one of the bats to take the cross of Sarah's neck…well, not so much her neck as her massive heaving cleavage that the camera manages to zoom into every five seconds, but again she doesn't fight back as more she stands there and just screams. I think she wanted Dracula to bite her, she just had to show a little resistance since she plays so defenseless. And just Dracula's luck, he grabs a metal pole during a thunder storm and gets hit by lightening! You know there's something I've learned from this series, Dracula is a very bad shot. Every movie, he throws something at someone during a fight and always misses, he's about to throw the metal pole at Simon and lightening strikes him, I think it's God's way of telling him "Oh, give it up, man! You're a bad shot!" Anyways, back onto the film, is it worth the watch? I think so, despite it's flaws, this was a lot more gory and had some really good scares. The scene where Dracula burns his servant Klove is genuinely terrifying. Dracula knows what he wants and will do anything to get it and if you mess with him prepare to take on some severe punishment, because if you come at him with fists, he'll come at you with a bat, you come at him with a bat, he'll come at you with the fangs and if you bring a stake, I suggest you make sure he's dead because he'll never stop until he's drained you of every last drop of blood in your body. I know, because I've watched all the sequels.

6/10

A Sadistic & Violent Dracula Film

[spacemonkey_fg · 8/10 · 10 June 2005]

Title: Scars of Dracula (1970)

Directed by: Ray Ward Baker Cast: Christopher Lee, Dennis Waterman, Jenny Hanly, Patrick Throughton, Christopher Mathews

Review: How many here enjoyed Horror of Dracula? Did you like its creepiness? Did you dig its heavy atmosphere? Did you shiver at Draculas evil blood shot stare? Well have I got news for you.

Those of you who have not seen this flick, or are just discovering Hammer films, go and search this one out. It's a very enjoyable and creepy Dracula tale, that will please fans of Dracula films and gore alike! I've seen some of the best hammer Dracula films and I have seen some of the worst, and all I can say is that this one ranks way up there as a highly enjoyable Count Dracula story, which I'm sad to say is sometimes bombarded by critics and even by Christopher Lee himself as being a weak entry into the series. Me? I thought it was a kick ass vampire movie, old school style of course, but mega fun non the less. The only reason for it being called a "weak"entry is because it has more violence then other Hammer films. This in my opinion does not make it weak, if anything it made it a cooler film to watch. It made it more of a horror film.

The story is about a young womanizer who goes by the name Paul (Christopher Mathews) . Hes escaping the local authorities for having his way with some important dudes daughter. Anyhows on his way to escaping he ends up in Draculas castle. After that his brother Simon (Dennis Waterman), decides to go and look for him with his girlfriend Sarah (Jenny Hanley). What they encounter is Count Dracula himself who of course first offers them his hospitality, then proceeds to try and suck their blood! Even though this film is sans Peter Cushing and that's a sad thing any day of the week, we do get some really cool and likable characters. First there's the Simon character played by Dennis Waterman. He is very headstrong and valiant. Facing off Klove in some scenes and Dracula himself towards the end. There's Sarah played by Jenny Hanly who is so beautiful and delicate yet she herself is valiant and daring when she has to be. Also there's this one character that I guess was supposed to replace Peter Cushing and it's the Priest played by Michael Gwyn. He even looks a bit like Peter Cushing but in my opinion cant even be compared, simply because Cushing has such presence…not so with The Priest. In Scars of Dracula we also see a character that was also presented in Dracula : Prince of Darkness which is Draculas day time protector. He is this Igor-like character called Klove. He presents a nice twist in the movie. Not gonna go into details, but he is part of what made the movie a little different.

Dracula is a bit more evil, sadistic and violent in this film than in others, for example he is seen using weapons such as daggers and swords to express his fury, instead of the more traditional ways were used to seeing him use. There's this really cool scene which I very much enjoyed in which Dracula uses a burning hot sword! Cool scene! The movie has a lot of classic horror images and it is filled with all the horror ambiance and imagery we've come to expect from a Hammer film but pushed a little further. For example the fog is heavy and thick in this one, Draculas castle is huge and haunting, and the sound of the wind blowing almost never stops in the scenes that take place up in Draculas castle. A nice little touch if you ask me. Also there's full moons, ans howling wolfs in the distance, and lets not forget the giant vampire bats! They are all over the place in this film aiding Dracula in his evil schemes. These bats are responsible for some of the most gruesome scenes in the film. And there's also a wink at Vlad the Impailer for in one scene Drac impales one of his adversaries.

Also another scene that made this film special was one scene in which Dracula crawls out of his lair through the window...and then proceeds to scale the wall, spider-man style. This comes directly out of the Bramstokers novel so I found it amusing. Equally amusing was the fact that this was the only time that this had been shown on film. The other film that did it was in the Jhon Badham version of Dracula were Frank Langella does the scaling up the walls.

Be on the look out also for a mega cool demise for Dracula, I think the final sequence in this film is spectacular, and in it I saw the inspiration and the muse for Jerry Dandridges fiery death sequence in Fright Night, speaking of which, there's a scene in this flick which actually appears in Fright Night. Its towards the end of the film. It involves a giant vampire bat trying to take away a crucifix from Sarahs neck. We see this scene playing on Charlies TV set at some point in Fright Night. It seems to me that there's a little bit of all these Hammer films in Fright Night.

Finally I think that anyone fond of Dracula films, and specially Hammer films will find this film highly enjoyable, because of Christopher Lees evil performance, high atmosphere, Gothic sets and the high blood quotient (for a Hammer film anyways) Don't go expecting a huge bloodbath, by todays standards its tame, but by Hammer films standards up to that time, its got lots of the red stuff. Expect a fun ride into Gothic atmospheric horror…hammer style! Rating: 41/2 out of 5

None too original but action filled Dracula film , the most underrated of the series

[DrLenera · 26 July 2004]

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.

The best Hammer Dracula

[preppy-3 · 8/10 · 6 January 2005]

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.

A more sadistic Dracula

[rams_lakers · 5/10 · 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.

The devil has won.

[hitchcockthelegend · 6/10 · 1 October 2009]

A village girl found murdered, could it be that Dracula is back? Playboy Paul Carlson is about to find out.

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

Not one of Hammer's finest hours, but also not their worst Dracula film

[TheLittleSongbird · 6/10 · 15 June 2015]

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

Dracula Is Back... And More Evil Than Ever

[Witchfinder-General-666 · 8/10 · 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

Underrated...and my favorite in the series

[mord39 · 10 October 2000]

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.

Last classic in the series

[rose-294 · 8/10 · 13 July 2008]

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.

In the End, Evil Is Defeated

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 10 August 2014]

In a small village, the villagers decide to destroy Dracula (Christopher Lee) burning his castle to the ground. They protect their wives in the church and head to the castle, but evil wins and their wives are murdered by bats under the command of Dracula.

Sometime later, the womanizer Paul Carlson (Christopher Matthews) has one night stand with Alice (Delia Lindsay, who is the burgomaster's daughter. He is surprised by her father and flees from the town in a coach. He arrives at the village late night and the landlord of the inn refuses to lodge him. He seeks shelter in Dracula's castle and disappears.

His brother Simon Carlson (Dennis Waterman) and his girlfriend Sarah Framsen (Jenny Hanley) seeks Paul out and arrive at the inn where Paul was expelled. Nobody gives any information for them but the servant Julie (Wendy Hamilton) tells that Paul has gone to the castle. Simon and Sarah go to the castle and are welcomed by Count Dracula. Will they escape alive from the vampire?

"Scars of Dracula" is a violent movie by Hammer with Dracula. The director Roy Ward Baker explores the bright colors to make a gore movie. One of the best scenes in this movie is when Dracula leaves his lair crawling on the outside wall since the room does not have any other exit but the window. The actresses are beautiful and voluptuous and the special effects are reasonable for a 1970 movie. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "O Conde Drácula" ("The Count Dracula")

Much maligned fourth sequel in the Hammer Dracula series

[stephenneale67 · 6/10 · 21 January 2006]

Writers of Horror cinematography seem generally to have deemed 'Scars of Dracula' to be the poorest offering in the Hammer/Lee Dracula catalogue (1958-73), based chiefly on a lack of originality. I would disagree and whilst the film may have more flaws than most Hammer films in terms of not so special effects, it has considerable merit and, in my view, a good deal of originality. Firstly, one is struck by the peculiar physiognomy of Lee - his face drawn and ashen, almost as though he has been drained of blood, and definitely looking more like one of the undead than in previous films. In tandem with this new image, Lee carries out unprecedented acts of violence: in one maniacal scene, repeatedly stabbing one of his female cohorts with frenzied aggression when he discovers her in bed with an equally doomed guest, and in another scene, sadistically branding his man-servant (Patrick Troughton/Klove) across the back with a glowing sword, drawn from hot coals. In another scene, we find the previously mentioned guest hung like a piece of meat on a hook, which impales his chest. Such violent visuals do not, of course, necessarily add merit to the film (and Christopher Lee later commented that he deplored the violent contents of this particular sequel), but again represent an unprecedented aspect of the Dracula perennials. Possibly the most original and pleasing merit of the film is the location of Dracula's sleeping chamber and the way in which only he can access it. The chamber is set high up in the castle and can only be accessed by a window overlooking an abyss, hundreds of feet above the ground. This literally is the only access, as inside we find that there are no internal doors - only walls of stone. Drawing inspiration from the original Stoker novel, we come to see how Dracula comes and goes from his chamber, as at nightfall he emerges from the window and defies all the laws of physics by crawling up the wall to a window above. Marvellous. There is also an interesting addition where we find Dracula to have developed an ingenious defence mechanism to prevent him being staked while he slumbers. Though his eyes remain closed, the lids are superimposed by glowing red eyes which, understandably, startle and ward off the would-be 'staker'. As said, the film does have its flaws, not least in that it contains more than its fair share of Hammer hum-drum (Carpathian landlords with Cornish accents type-of-thing) and visually there is much to evoke laughter rather than fear. Rubber bats proliferate the film from start to end and the shoe-string sets also inhibit proceedings. There is one point when the 'solid stone' wall of Dracula's sleeping chamber containing the window wobbles momentarily as an intruder (who has managed to gain ingress by means of a bed-curtain hung from the window above) rushes to it, on seeing the curtain being pulled back up. And, though we are given an original demise for the Count, as he bursts into flames whilst holding an iron rail when it is struck by lightening, this sequence is itself shot down in flames as we see that the figure besieged by the inferno is clearly not Christopher Lee, but a masked stuntman. But then it is goofs like this which elicit such affection among Hammer aficionados. This film is well-deserving of a place in a horror film collection and though not great, it does have aspects which make it good.

Scars of Dracula

[Scarecrow-88 · 9/10 · 31 October 2006]

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.

Below par.

[parry_na · 5/10 · 12 July 2015]

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.

Scars of Dracula (1970) ***

[JoeKarlosi · 7/10 · 6 September 2006]

This is simply an underrated film, and is unfairly placed at a disadvantage merely for coming along too late in the Hammer Dracula Sweepstakes. I'd place "Scars of Dracula" very high atop my personal favorites in this haphazard franchise, even above the good but yet still overrated "Horror of Dracula," even though I gave both of these the same basic surface rating. Had "Scars" been the very first offering for Hammer studios, it would be much better accepted than it is now.

For openers, "Scars of Dracula" correctly focuses more on the actions of Dracula himself and affords Christopher Lee more screen time than in any other Hammer Dracula film. The story itself is standard stuff, as another young man stumbles upon the Count's castle and tangles with the vampire. But in addition to seeing more of Drac, we also get to see more traditional staples of good vampire films - like squealing vampire bats and a Renfield-like assistant, for example. Dracula's vintage castle looks much more Gothic and authentic here than it ever did in "Horror of Dracula," and director Roy Ward Baker even includes a shot from straight out of Bram Stoker's novel where the Count is witnessed scaling the sides of the castle's exterior like some kind of lizard. And the lustful Anouska Hempel makes for a gorgeous and sexy vampiress. When she commands: "love me!" all I can do is ask her how hard.

Detractors like to pick on the fake look of the bats in the movie (as if movie prop bats have ever looked authentic in any old vampire films!) and they also cite the low budget sets as a detriment (and I'll maintain that "Horror of Dracula"'s sets looked far cheaper). I'll begrudgingly concede one commonly held flaw with the film, though - it involves the demise of Dracula. While it was a good idea in theory, the execution utilizes an obvious dummy and some hopelessly looped screaming that's repeated over and over again. Nothing's perfect when it comes to Hammer Dracula films, but this one's still a good time. Even Christopher Lee was pleasantly surprised when he did a recent audio commentary for the Anchor Bay DVD. *** out of ****

The best of the Dracula sequels!

[The_Void · 8/10 · 7 April 2005]

The problem with Hammer's ever-popular Dracula series is that the sequels to the original classic all follow a set formula and are all therefore rather monotonous. However, luckily for this instalment Hammer have assigned one of their top directors; Roy Ward Baker, and you can always count on him for an entertaining horror ride. The Quatermass and the Pit director has achieved something that didn't seem likely after seeing all the other films in the series; he's actually got Christopher Lee to appear for more than five minutes! Yes, that's right the star of the show is actually the star of the show this time; and while he doesn't actually lead the film, you do get the impression that you're watching a Christopher Lee film. His performance is the usual mix of malevolence and over the top camp; and as usual, it's very effective. Lee epitomises his character to such a degree that, Bela Lugosi aside, you can't imagine anyone else in the role. And this is all the better when you consider that he's in the movie for a while this time.

The plot is the same "Dracula gets resurrected, wreaks some havoc and then gets defeated until next time" that all the Dracula sequels follow; but this time the surrounding story is much more interesting than usual. We follow a young upstart who flees after being accused of rape and finds himself in a place that you really don't want to find yourself; Count Dracula's castle. Then, after he's been missing for a while, his brother sets out to find him. An excellent atmosphere that is full of tension gives the film a very foreboding aura, which helps it massively in capturing a horror feel. The way that Dracula's castle is shown is fantastic, and the smoke effects and long shots of the castle itself are absolutely delicious. Adding to this is a very powerful musical score, which shows why Hammer are famous for their over the top music. Scars of Dracula is also notable for featuring most of the common vampire clichés such as the wooden stake and the cross. One the whole, I rate this as Hammer's second best Dracula film, second only to the original. Highly recommended!

Yet another Dracula film from Hammer offers the usual fare

[MartinHafer · 4/10 · 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.

Very cool flick

[dworldeater · 8/10 · 29 October 2017]

Scars Of Dracula is the goriest and most violent of the Hammer Dracula films. Christopher Lee gives a very sadistic and totally evil portrayal of the Count here. The pastie makeup job on Dracula might look real cheap and fake, but the extra pale complexion looks cool in my opinion. This was the last of the Hammer Dracula films that is in a Gothic setting, while the film is cheaper than its predecessors and had some flaws I found Scars Of Dracula to be very enjoyable. There are nods here and there to the original source material. Hammer regular Michael Ripper gives a memorable performance as does Patrick Troughton as servant Klove who is best known for his as the priest in The Omen and on the Dr. Who television series. The old Hammer sets look great and the film has great Gothic ambiance. There also is a good amount of blood and gorgeous big breasted women to go around. I would not regard this as the most well made of the series, but it still is a solid and entertaining entry to the series. Cool flick.

Don't let other reviewers misguide you

[metta-4 · 8/10 · 7 August 2000]

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!

Devilishly Delightful Dracula

[Rainey-Dawn · 9/10 · 23 October 2015]

This is a really good Hammer Horror Dracula film. It is the 5th in the Christopher Lee Dracula series and a devilishly delightful one at that! In this one, we finally get to see Dracula on screen more often and hear him speak quite a bit more too. This 5th Lee Dracula film is definitely an excellent, solid Dracula flick.

This is a film that critics and fans of Lee's Dracula seems to be split on - some loved it, other hated it. It's really best for the viewer to decide if they liked the movie or not... just like any other film. I am personally pleased with the "Scars of Dracula".

Although "Scars" picks up where "Taste the Blood" left off you really don't have to watch any of the other Lee Dracula films to know what is going on in "Scars".

9.5/10

The Master and the servant...

[simeon_flake · 8/10 · 7 October 2017]

Well, Dracula usually had a servant in these films, no matter what & I can't quite remember if they usually crossed him, but the one here does- -or tries to anyway. This time, Hammer tries what may have been their first twist on the old themes--having the Count destroyed by fire. Of course, nothing ever holds him down forever, does it.

Aside from the fiery climax, there is the twist of Dracula controlling bats and having them do some of his dirty work. Nice scenes of the bats destroying the villagers and that one scene near the end where the heroine's crucifix gets removed. The usual stalwart performances from all involved--and now that I think about it, another Bride of Dracula who gets destroyed by the master (nice work).

The usual good Hammer entertainment....

More In Line with the Normal Vampire Traditions

[Uriah43 · 6/10 · 14 February 2017]

Although "Dracula" (Christopher Lee) is dead and his body has decomposed, a bat manages to spit out some blood and return him back to life--and his evil ways. Aware that he has returned, the local villagers march up to his castle and set it on fire. However, not only does the fire not reach him, but when the men return to their village they find that all of their loved ones have been killed by bats while they were gone. After that the villagers avoid the castle and Dracula, along with a servant and female follower named "Tania" (Anouska Hempel) are essentially left alone. But then one night a young man named "Paul Carlson" (Christopher Matthews) comes to visit and everything changes after that. Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that this film was more in line with the normal vampire traditions than the previous Hammer Films. To that end, Christopher Lee seemed to benefit the most as his performance was much more sinister. Additionally, having an attractive actress like Jenny Hanley (as "Sarah") certainly didn't hurt either. In any case, I thought this was a pretty good vampire film and I have rated it accordingly. Above average.

A bloody Dracula film from Hammer

[Red-Barracuda · 6/10 · 2 March 2011]

The Prince of Darkness is revived by a bat that hovers over his crumbling remains dripping blood onto it. Shortly after this a girl is found dead under suspicious circumstances and angry local villagers get into action and carry out an amazingly inept revenge act. It doesn't work of course, and soon we are off on another vampire tale…

Scars of Dracula is the most bloody of the entries in the Hammer Dracula series. With a particularly gruesome slaughter in a church a standout moment of macabre nastiness. And a sadistic whipping meted out by the count another example of the more sadistic approach of this movie. Christopher Lee is on hand again with another typically reliable performance. Character actor Patrick Troughton plays his grimy sidekick, while Anouska Hempel appears as his slinky fellow female vampire. Anouska is sadly underused here but will be familiar to those of you that have seen the impressive later erotic horror film Vampyres. Unlike that latter film, Scars doesn't feature any actual nudity as it appears in the Hammer cycle before they started incorporating that. Beyond the gore there isn't anything overly different in this entry, it's the usual staple of features you would expect of a Hammer Dracula film. Although if you are a fan of the series then this is not necessarily a bad thing.

Bloody dull

[moonspinner55 · 3/10 · 13 September 2017]

Although portions of this Dracula entry revert back to the original novel by Bram Stoker, the rest of this Hammer production holds only marginal interest. Christopher Lee is once again featured in the titular role (the fourth time in one year he appeared as the Count), but the frightened lovers who have invaded Dracula's castle searching for a lost relative are brash and boring. Film opens with Dracula being resurrected by a vampire bat spitting blood; later, bats wreak bloody vengeance on a village after the men have set fire to Dracula's lair upon finding a dead maiden in the woods. Lee looks terrific in costume, of course, and he gets a fairly imaginative sendoff here. Still, nearly every scene without him is obvious and 'ominous', punctuated by James Bernard's incessant scary music and thunderous sound effects. Patrick Troughton gives a fine performance as Dracula's servant, there's a funny scene with a naked wench claiming she was 'interfered' with, and the picture looks handsome enough except for the rubbery bats. It's also very bloody. *1/2 from ****