Wordiezett So much average

Borserie it is finally so absorbing because it plays like a lyrical road odyssey that’s also a detective story.

Roman Sampson One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

Gary The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

Benedito Dias Rodrigues Maybe this movie is most gloomy and gore Dracula of all Hammer's productions,the plot is often the same,but in the beginning something fresh all villagers burn the Dracula's castle after one more body appears,another high point is a lot of beauty women in the movie all them gorgeous and sexy...without forget the amazing acting of Patrick Troughton as Klove a weird guy who is enchanted by Sarah's portrait and help Simon escapes....Lee needless a word to describe....the movie spoke itself,cruel,violent,bloody and gloomy!! Resume: First watch: 2017 / How many: 1 / Source: DVD / Rating: 7

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.

Nigel P Although Hammer's horror films were becoming more prolific by 1970, there was a definite downturn in their fortunes: audiences were falling out of love for their modest-budgeted Gothic tales.Released shortly after 'Taste the Blood of Dracula', the drop in quality for this latest offering is noticeable, both in budget (there is a very studio-bound feel to Dracula's castle for example) and in interesting new ideas (Dracula's life-saving blood-spewing personal bat is particularly unsuccessful).Rather than an ongoing story, 'Scars' is more a series of set-pieces. The exploits of rakish Paul Carson are directed like an episode of the lame sex-comedy 'Confessions of…' film series. We then have the slaughter of a church full of villagers we never get to know, various sadistic acts by Dracula (as well as a partially successful scene of him crawling snake-like down the walls of his castle, lifted from the novel – presumably keeping Christopher Lee happy) and finally the least convincing climactic dispatch of the Count by lightning as Dennis Waterman and a badly dubbed Jenny Hanley watch on.Although it gives Lee more to do than most sequels in this series, it is nevertheless a palpably tired offering and wastes most of its cast. Hammer were surely aware of the paucity of ideas on display and decided to make a fairly big change with their next Dracula film.

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