simeon_flake 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 there 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....

LeonLouisRicci Opinions Vary Wildly on this Ongoing Series Followup. It Straddles the Fine Line between Camp and Sadistic Bloodletting.The Poor "Bat". This Nocturnal Mammal is Easy Fodder for Ridicule in Pre-Modern Horror Films. Was there ever a Good or Respectable Rendition on Screen. Usually Seen as just what They are. Rubber, Awkward Props on a Wire. This is probably "Scars" Weakest element, and for Toppers, there are many Scenes with Dracula's Totem Dominion Displayed throughout.This is Hammer's most Gruesome and Gory of the "Dracula" Movies, one of the Things that puts the Film on its Supporters Side, and the "Bats" Carnage is Substantial. The Church Aftermath is Chilling.Chris Lee has a lot more to Say in Comparison to some of the others, so that is a Plus. The Budget for this one was Slashed and it Shows in Spots. Dracula's Subordinate and Whipping Post, "Living" with Him in the Castle, along with a "Bride", is Integral to the Plot and is Touchingly Portrayed by Patrick Troughton.Overall, if You Like Your Hammer "Draculas" with Plenty of the Red Stuff, and Cleavage Galore, You will Accentuate the Positive with this one. But if You have No Tolerance for Rubber Bats, Not So Much.No Matter the Divide among Outspoken Viewers, if it's a Hammer Movie, it's Worth a Watch. This one Rides the New Violence like No Other Hammer Film Before, for Better or Worse.

GL84 Trying to locate their friend, a couple venturing through the countryside after him find that the evidence leads to a strange lord's Castle in the hillside where they find contains the vampire Dracula and must find a way of stopping the evil being from carrying on more harm.This here was quite a fun and enjoyable effort. One of the better elements here is the film displays the very first signs of the company's evolution within the time-period, as the shift towards mores sex and violence surprisingly fits the movie well. It allows for something most Hammer films don't do in managing to include their usual Gothic trappings with some additional gore and sleaze that come about here. The film's Gothic sensibilities are on display quite early here, not only due to the fact that it takes place at the castle itself which is the usually grand and ornate location featured in such affairs as that includes the usual grand hallways, twisting hallways and secret passageways with large drapes and candelabras lighting the way which make the sections of them staying at the castle quite fun. Likewise, the action quotient here is also enjoyable with the burning castle set piece in the beginning of the film is a nice scene to look at, as we see its long, elegant clock towers going up in flames as the central body burns brightly is impressive to view, the scenes of them wandering through the countryside trying to find a way to escape is quite nice while there's some nice work of him targeting the villagers who go up to help them. This ends up providing the film with a body count as his seduction of many of them provide this with some rather enjoyable scenes, as well as providing the lead-in for the finale which is so much fun with the resurrection in the coffin and finally detailing the series of chases and battles on the castle's fortress which make for quite a thrilling and truly rousing finish. Alongside an extremely creative and unique way that Dracula gets resurrected in this, there's a lot to really like here with this one while there's only a few issues here to contend with. The middle of the film could be seen as a weak point of the movie, as nothing of real significance happens, and it does tend to drag out a bit here with the traditional Hammer scenes, from the overlong set-up to get him out to the castle in order to disappear in order for their later search to occur and the later parts of them wandering the countryside stopping at the end where it takes forever for something to finish out. That seems to be the real beef with the film as too often they have scenes that seem to carry on forever that do absolutely nothing to get the plot going. Also, the scene where Dracula is seen scaling a wall by crawling up it was one of the most laughably bad scenes ever. It looks so ridiculous and silly that I can't believe it was even allowed into the final version of the film as it's just such a weak effect. Still, the pace here is the biggest issue.Rated R: Violence, Language, Nudity, and a sex scene.

TheLittleSongbird 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