Scars of Dracula (1970)

Thanks for the memories!

It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

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....

The last of the period Dracula films from Hammer finds Sir Christopher Lee in fine form. He's especially evil and sadistic as he goes about doing what he does best. The prologue sees him resurrected (in a rather novel way), and soon targeted by the nearby villagers, who attempt to burn down his castle. Some time later, an insatiable young rascal named Paul (Christopher Matthews) ends at Castle Dracula in an odd turn of events. When he disappears, his brother Simon (Dennis Waterman) and Simons' girlfriend Sarah (Jenny Hanley) come looking for him, and they must do battle with the nefarious Count.The screenplay by Anthony Hinds is contrived and doesn't always make sense, but director Roy Ward Baker delivers an agreeable shocker. It stands out from other Hammer Draculas by the nature of its violence and dark tone. The prologue ends in a horrible, fatal way for a number of characters. The studio once again is to be commended for their commitment to atmosphere, as there are some spooky shots here and there. Some tension is derived from the fact that the only way into the Counts' private room is a window. The special effects tend towards the unconvincing, at least in terms of the prop bats that pop up throughout. Typically grandiose James Bernard music is a heavy asset. There's a recurring element of comedy (such as the law officers), but not too much of it.Some of the supporting performances aren't all that hot, but the ladies (also including the very appealing Wendy Hamilton as the brave Julie, Delia Lindsay, and Anouska Hempel) are sexy and ravishing. Patrick Troughton is a joy as Draculas' somewhat loyal servant Klove, Michael Gwynn delivers gravitas as a helpful priest, and Michael Ripper (what a treat it is to see him in any Hammer film) has a field day as one of the most common stereotypes in Gothic horror: the hostile, decidedly unhelpful citizen who's always turning outsiders away.This is a good entry in this series that does manage a novel way of dispatching Dracula at the end.Seven out of 10.

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.

After some villagers band together and burn down Count Dracula's castle, things are peacefully quiet, until Paul Carlson stumbles across the place. Dracula offers him a place to stay, little does Paul know what awaits him. Paul is inevitably murdered. Paul's brother Simon takes his companion Sarah to go look for him. Is it just me? or are these movies really becoming indistinguishable. I love Horror of Dracula, a couple of sequels are entertaining as well, but by this point, they were completely derivative and lacking imagination. The sets are typically lavish, cinematography is fantastic, and stylish atmosphere is present as well, but it's all for naught. This one suffers from pacing issues as well. At times, it is way too talky with characters that are very uninteresting. The gore is actually OK for this sort of thing. We get a couple of people being impaled, neck bites, and bloody bat attacks. I highly doubt it will whet a gore hound's appetite, but it is decent enough for a film like this. The acting is so-so. Christopher Lee continues to hum along very well with his typical menacing style. Dennis Waterman is extremely bland as Simon, Jenny Hanley is average as the love interest. Christopher Matthews is decent as Paul. What is up with all the characters named Paul in this series?! Dracula's demise in this one is very lame, lacking any excitement. This would be the final period film in this series, moving to more of a contemporary setting with Dracula A.D. It isn't the worst, but far from the best. Worth a look, but prepare for tedium5.3/10