Wonderful character development!

Great Film overall

A lot of fun.

I was totally surprised at how great this film.You could feel your paranoia rise as the film went on and as you gradually learned the details of the real situation.

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 ****

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.

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.

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