quridley This starts very strong, being a much tighter and serious movie than the first. This feels like real horror. But the wheels fall off due to missing scenes and a literal unfinished ending. I guess Sam Z Arkoff, the studio head at American International Pictures (AIP), put less money into this sequel, despite the success of the original. That was the practice then with exploitation franchises (and the penny-saving Hollywood films of 2017).Everything considered, its an OK watch. Not as good as the first Blackula and not even required viewing like Black Caesar's fabulous sequel "Hell Up In Harlem". But if you are forgiving in the mood for entertaining 70s cheese that is quite strong, check out SBS.

jacobjohntaylor1 This is very scary movie. It is sequel to B.l.a.c.u.l.a And it is awesome. It has great acting. It also has a great story line. It also has great special effects. If you like really scary movies. Then you need to see this movie. B.l.a.c.l.a is resurrected by a voodoo witch Doctor. This is one of the scariest movies ever made. Not a great title but don't judge it by that. This a great movie. Great movie great movie great movie. I so running out of this to say. The only people who would not like this movie are people who do not like horror movies. I people who did not see it and do not like title. William Marshall was a great actor. He know to be scary. This movie is a must see. Great Dracula spin off.

jockledoodledoo This follow up to 'Blacula' really doesn't quite deliver what it should. While the first film is by no means perfect, it is highly entertaining and quite well paced. 'Scream Blacula Scream' howls 'cash-in', basically being a carbon copy of the original (myth versus science / voodoo versus science) with the addition of Pam Grier. One might expect Pam's role to be one of a bad ass chick sent down to kick Blacula's ass, but no, sadly she is wrongly cast as a fairly dull damsel in distress.The pacing of the film is altogether incredibly sluggish - indeed, the most is made out of some of the spooky set pieces, but this feels like a dragged out 45 minute TV show with bigger ambitions than it could actually deliver. There is a vast amount of tedious filler - not that the first film didn't heavily feature musical performances, but these were at least were rather fun.The ending itself seems to also sum up the film; it just stops really, after the set 'movie length' has been covered it sinks into a severe anti-climax. The director and cast cannot have been proud of this effort which is best avoided. Watching the trailer will sum up the film, and you'll get to see (most) of the highlights and then have time to watch a more decent film!

mrbill-23 I just bought "Scream, Blacula, Scream" from '73 at Wal-Mart for $5.00 dollars. I LIKE IT! I already bought the original Blacula several years ago but, I had never seen the sequel until today. I thought it was done rather well. I fully enjoyed the film. William Marshall is VERY convincing as a scary vampire who is evil as sin. In a way, two films of this nature is enough for William Marshall; no need to drag-it-out and over-stay your welcome. I feel two movies was enough. In considering that the film is that of the early 70s with little special effect abilities, I still say it was done well enough for any horror fan to admire. I am STOKED that I bought this DVD.. Prince Mamuwalde / Count Blacula is kool... He's a strange, scary dude... Cheers....MR.BILL, RaleighNOTE:I do, however, think that the ending scene in the original film was more satisfying than that of the sequel...