User Reviews

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.

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

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.

1970's "Scars of Dracula" topped the only Dracula-Frankenstein double bill ever offered by Hammer, Christopher Lee's 5th performance in the series coupled with the already completed "The Horror of Frankenstein" for a brief run on the drive-in circuit by American Continental Films (along with "Lust for a Vampire"), quickly sold to television and popping up in record time before disappearing from the airwaves. "Scars" began shooting only five months after the previous Hammer entry "Taste the Blood of Dracula," seven months after Jesus Franco's adaptation "Count Dracula," and actually returns to Stoker for many plot devices that had never been done in films. The climax of "Taste" had Dracula destroyed in a London church, kicking things off here back in Transylvania with his ashes revived by dripping blood from a very large and rather phony rubber bat (the only previous entry that employed bats was 1960's "The Brides of Dracula," the one without Lee). The torch bearing villagers decide to storm Castle Dracula for a proper burning, only to return to their loved ones at the church mutilated by vengeful bats in their absence (the same set reused in Jimmy Sangster's "Lust for a Vampire"). The philandering Paul Carlson (Christopher Matthews) escapes the clutches of the law only to find himself arriving at Castle Dracula, welcomed by the beautiful Tania (Anouska Hempel) and her master, introducing himself with three simple yet familiar words: "I am Dracula." With no possible escape, Paul tries to make himself comfortable, receiving a visit from Tania as willing bed warmer, having just been bitten by Dracula (only the second time we see Lee perform the actual bite). The approaching dawn has Tania ready to sink her own fangs into her lover's neck, an enraged Dracula emerging to stab her repeatedly in an unexpected and illogical demise for a vampire. Paul discovers an opening some yards below his room, making his way down the wall to find himself hopelessly trapped in the Count's private sanctuary, later found impaled on a meat hook. Director Roy Ward Baker was proud of restoring the Count's ability to use creatures of the night to perform his bidding, either as winged angels of death or like carrier pigeons, as well as having doors open and close by themselves whenever Dracula requires. By far the most notable idea from Stoker was the sight of Dracula crawling down the castle wall (recreated for Frank Langella), seen here as walking up the wall from his hidden coffin location. Lee also receives more screen time than in any other Hammer entry, over 11 minutes for a more balanced approach that keeps him involved right from the start. Simon Carlson (Dennis Waterman) and girlfriend Sarah (Jenny Hanley) search for his missing brother, barely escaping Castle Dracula through the help of the Count's manservant Klove (Patrick Troughton), who keeps a framed photo of the lovely Sarah and only defies his master in her defense. Klove was introduced in Lee's second entry "Dracula - Prince of Darkness," earning forgiveness by bringing new blood in the shapely form of Wendy Hamilton as Julie, instantly killed by Dracula's bite. The idea of a church desecrated by evil previously appeared in "Dracula Has Risen from the Grave," the ineffectual priest played by the distinguished Michael Gwynn, Peter Cushing's creation from 1958's "The Revenge of Frankenstein." Despite the savage critical backlash upon release (even cofeature "The Horror of Frankenstein" was received with greater leniency), Lee himself was surprised at how well it turned out during his 2000 commentary track, perhaps mollified by the numerous Stoker touches that he was usually calling for and, for once, accepted by screenwriter Anthony Hinds, under his regular pseudonym John Elder. This turned out to be the final Gothic sequel, two modern era vehicles to close out Lee's participation, "Dracula A. D. 1972" and "The Satanic Rites of Dracula."

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

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")

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 ****

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.

Scars of Dracula is one of the later sequels to Hammer's 1958 Dracula. It has the advantage of starring Christopher Lee but it's also missing Peter Cushing which is a shame.

The plot's very similar to the original novel but there is also several more memorable sequences with some lush cinematography, such as Dracula climbing down a wall and stabbing a woman to death. Also notable for giving Lee more dialogue than the other Dracula films, it was also nice to see Michael Ripper (a Hammer regular, and also frequent star of Robin Hood tv series) again as a landlord. Patrick Troughton plays a villainous servant to Dracula.

7/10: A good, and shockingly violent gothic Hammer horror

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

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 ****

MORD39 RATING: *** out of ****

In my opinion, SCARS OF DRACULA is the most satisfying entry of all the Hammer Dracula's, even squeaking past the revered HORROR OF DRACULA.

People like to pick on the reduced budget, but I have never felt that the sets look too bad when all is said and done. The only thing that "Count's" is that Dracula is given more screen time than usual and is thoroughly evil and sadistic.

Sure, it's not an original idea having another man stranded at Dracula's castle, but it works well. A point that not many bring out is that there are also elements of Bram Stoker's novel which are utilized in the film, and for that alone I give it a slight nudge over HORROR OF DRACULA.

I think that this film might appear more to those who are not familiar with Hammer's other Dracula films, as they won't have any prejudices. This is a good, solid Dracula film.

The 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.

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.

A young man (Christopher Matthews) running from the law ends up at an ominous castle and goes missing. Thus his brother and a friend (Dennis Waterman & Jenny Hanley) travel to the dubious dwelling to find him, but come face-to-face with a formidable fiend (Christopher Lee).

"Scars of Dracula" (1970) is a sort of reboot of the Hammer series in that it's basically a redo of Lee's first two stabs at the undead Count: "Horror of Dracula" (1958) and "Dracula, Prince of Darkness" (1966), not to mention it mixes in aspects of "Dracula Has Risen from the Grave" (1968) and, most significantly, the plot of "Psycho" (1960). For those who question the latter, just reread the plot description above.

Some viewers gripe that this one doesn't fit the chronology of the series for a couple of reasons, yet these supposed conundrums are easily explained: Dracula was reduced to dust at the end of the prior film, "Taste the Blood of Dracula" (1970), but Klove had instructions to seek out and acquire the Count's ashes if he was ever slain and bring them back to the castle in Transylvania where one of his creatures of the night would supply the blood necessary to resurrect the Prince of Darkness. As for the differences in the look of the castle, Hammer had moved to a different studio and so of course it looks different than it did when they made "Horror of Dracula" thirteen years earlier.

Although marred by the cheesy bat sequences, "Scars of Dracula" is one of the more entertaining installments due to the spirited Paul, a bit o' genuine amusement in the first act and a generally compelling story (hey, it worked for "Psycho," why wouldn't it work here?). The female cast doesn't hurt, particularly the lovely Hanley as Sarah, but also Anouska Hempel (Tania), Delia Lindsay (Alice) and Wendy Hamilton (Julie).

For those interested, Hammer did nine Dracula-themed films from 1958 to 1974 as follows:

Horror of Dracula (1958); The Brides of Dracula (1960); Dracula: Prince of Darkness (1966); Dracula Has Risen from the Grave (1968); Taste the Blood of Dracula (1970); Scars of Dracula (1970); Dracula AD 1972 (1972); The Satanic Rites of Dracula (1973); and The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires (1974). Lee plays Dracula in all of them except "Brides" and "7 Golden Vampires" while Peter Cushing appears in five of them as a Van Helsing.

The film runs 1 hour, 35 minutes, and was shot at Elstree Studios & nearby Scratchwood, just northwest of London.

GRADE: B.

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.

Vintage Hammer production that has Christopher Lee wearing his beloved black & red cloak and plastic teeth for the fifth (or is it sixth?) time already, only this time he gets to be really nasty and vicious! During the first ten minutes already, "Scars of Dracula" contains more gore and bloody make-up effects than all the previous sequels together and the set pieces are truly dark and grim, so…bravo Mr. Roy Ward Baker, you certainly pleased me! The script, on the other hand, isn't very impressive. There's no real story, there aren't any elements that connect this film with any of the foregoing Dracula-films and the pitiful budget limitations even seem to affect the continuity at times. It appears to be easier every time to resurrect Dracula from the dead, as he rises again when a ridiculously fake bat on strings pukes blood on the rotting leftovers of his corpse. The devilish count goes on terrorizing the petrified inhabitants of a nearby village (that set his home on fire) as well as a trio of youngsters that pass by the castle accidentally. There are two marvelous aspects that typify this particular sequel: minor scenes that indicate an obvious return to Bram Stoker's basic writings (Dracula clambering on walls and dominating animals with his mind power) and – especially – the genuinely sadistic nature of his character! Whereas Dracula too often was a neutral monster in the other films, he's now a truly sick puppy, who unscrupulously butchers young women and molests his servants with a whip. Due to this energy-boost in the series, veteran actor Christopher Lee seems to enjoy his repetitive role some more again, and his great performance contributes in making "Scars of Dracula" a sleazy and violent Hammer highlight. Let's all get scarred by 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.