Home :: DVD :: Horror :: General  

Classic Horror & Monsters
Cult Classics
Frighteningly Funny
General

Series & Sequels
Slasher Flicks
Teen Terror
Television
Things That Go Bump
The Scars of Dracula

The Scars of Dracula

List Price: $24.98
Your Price: $22.48
Product Info Reviews

<< 1 2 3 4 5 >>

Rating: 3 stars
Summary: Not your Granddad's Dracula
Review: For most of the current generation, Christopher Lee remains the preeminent portrayer of Count Dracula on film, and his love/hate relationship with the role has been well documented. This small but effective film is one that he was fond of, however, if only due to the attempt to return to at least some of the themes and set pieces introduced in Bram Stoker's original novel (the scene of Dracula in full regalia climbing DOWN the sheer face of the castle wall like a bat is a standout). Although certainly not up to the classic standards of HORROR OF DRACULA or even the inferior DRACULA,PRINCE OF DARKNESS, this would be Lee's last period incarnation of the character before the whacked-out 70's versions that would forever bury the series. If you are a Lee fan, you will enjoy this title and want it for your Hammer Collection.

Rating: 4 stars
Summary: Terrific DVD package for lukewarm Hammer Dracula flick
Review: For Scars of Dracula, Christopher Lee's 5th outing as the Count, Lee gets more screen time and dialogue than usual, but for most of its length SoD is only mildly diverting. The film has a drab, low-budget aura, and the script is composed mostly of recycled ideas. Roy Ward Baker (director of a number of fine genre movies, e.g. Quatermass and the Pit, Asylum, Vampire Lovers), was apparently shocked by the sadism of Anthony Hinds' screenplay, and cynically decided to give Hammer what they wanted, accounting for the even greater emphasis on bloody violence than usual for a Hammer production. Unfortunately, the overall results don't come close to Baker's usually high standard. The normally sumptuous Hammer sets are cluttery and chintzy-looking and Moray Grant's cinematography is flat and TV-like; the whole movie really looks too bright and clean to generate any real gothic atmosphere. The miniature of Dracula's castle is fairly convincing (until it's set on fire), but the splatter makeups are simply wretched, and the mechanical bat might be more effective were it not so overused and overlit. Dennis Waterman and Jenny Hanley generate little chemistry or charisma as the hero and heroine, and Patrick Troughton as Klove is just sort of there with no explanation whatsoever (though it's nice to see Michael Ripper in a bit larger part than usual as the innkeeper). Also on the plus side: a few effective action sequences and shocks, Hanley and Anouska Hempel are gorgeous, and Delia Lindsay reveals her derriere early in the film (the only bit of nudity in a movie that could've used more, if only to liven things up). Surprisingly, just when you think the movie's a goner, things pick up at the climax: Dracula's eyes glowing through his eyelids (a very eerie effect), a brief shot of Lee crawling up the castle wall as in Stoker's novel, and a rousing pyrotechnic finale. But it's pretty much a case of "too little too late." Scars really makes me appreciate the freshness and style of Freddie Francis' Dracula Has Risen from the Grave (so far MIA on DVD). While not as disastrous as some have described, Scars of Dracula just barely aces Prince of Darkness for least of the Hammer Draculas (up to that point anyway). Check out Anchor Bay's excellent Dr. Jekyll & Sister Hyde or Quatermass and the Pit DVDs to see what Roy Ward Baker can do with a well-written, original script and decent production values.
Hammer completists, Chris Lee fans, and Dracula/vampire cultists will no doubt want this for their movie collections anyway and for those hardy souls Anchor Bay once again delivers the goods. The source print for the 1.85:1 anamorphic widescreen transfer is virtually flawless, with excellent brightness, contrast, detail, and sharpness, and richly saturated, well-balanced color. There are virtually no noticeable physical defects. Extras include a very clean 1.85:1 letterboxed British release trailer, rather shabby-looking letterboxed American release combo trailer (with Horror of Frankenstein), poster/still gallery, talent bios for Lee and Baker, and an audio commentary by the star and director, moderated by Hammer historian Marcus Hearn. Erudite and opinionated, Lee tends to dominate the discussion, but all three contribute plenty of interesting information about the film and many other topics (mostly Hammer-related) as well. My copy of this DVD also came with a special 'limited edition' bonus disc featuring a 1995 documentary "The Many Faces of Christopher Lee." Rather than the expected tired rehash of Lee's film appearances, the hour-long program is actually a pleasant surprise, as Christopher Lee literally invites us into his home, displays prized memorabilia and photos, relates personal anecdotes (on such wide-ranging subjects as his operatic ancestors, Bela Lugosi's ring, Rasputin, Vincent and Peter, and Fu Manchu), and even gives brief lessons on fencing and gunfighting, all interspersed with numerous clips from his films. The bonus disc also includes two lame music videos by some really cheesy lounge act co-featuring Mr. Lee (he duets on O Sole Mio/It's Now or Never in one). You'll probably view these once out of curiosity and never look at them again. In total another fine package from Anchor (unfortunately one that makes you wish the movie itself was as meticulously crafted). Three stars for the movie, five for the DVD.

Rating: 4 stars
Summary: Not the best, but the most horiffic of the entire series!
Review: Great movie although I still say "Horror Of Dracula" was the best of them all. This film is the best of the sequels. Only one confusing part of it though. In "Taste The Blood Of Dracula", he is destroyed and rots away into dust at that ruined church. "Scars" begins, presumably, right after that film, yet we see Dracula's remains lying on a stone slab at a castle. How did this happen? Did someone pick up his dust at the church and then sprinkle it in the castle? Maybe it was the bat who comes in to drip blood on the remains? Who knows?

In any case, this was a rather good film. Unlike the previous one, Dracula is present for nearly the entire film this time. And, a great demise at the end this time.

If you buy any of the Hammer "Dracula" films, stick with this and the previous ones. Stay away from the ones that take place in the 20th century. Not the same.

Rating: 4 stars
Summary: Not the best, but the most horiffic of the entire series!
Review: Great movie although I still say "Horror Of Dracula" was the best of them all. This film is the best of the sequels. Only one confusing part of it though. In "Taste The Blood Of Dracula", he is destroyed and rots away into dust at that ruined church. "Scars" begins, presumably, right after that film, yet we see Dracula's remains lying on a stone slab at a castle. How did this happen? Did someone pick up his dust at the church and then sprinkle it in the castle? Maybe it was the bat who comes in to drip blood on the remains? Who knows?

In any case, this was a rather good film. Unlike the previous one, Dracula is present for nearly the entire film this time. And, a great demise at the end this time.

If you buy any of the Hammer "Dracula" films, stick with this and the previous ones. Stay away from the ones that take place in the 20th century. Not the same.

Rating: 2 stars
Summary: Not Hammer's best
Review: Hammer films are rarely unwatchable, but this is certainly not one of the studio's better efforts.

On the plus side, it is notable for restoring a few elements of Bram Stoker's original: The Count plays the icily charming host as well as the feral, demonic villain; he exerts supernatural power over wild animals; and he scales the walls of his castle like a bat. There are a few nice gothic flourishes here and there, too.

On the whole, however, the negatives outweigh the positives. The cast are dull, and there's no strong protagonist to rival, say, Peter Cushing or Andrew Keir from earlier on in the series. Even Christopher Lee is starting too look too old for the part by now. The effects are remarkably inconsistent, bordering on utterly silly at times, especially in the final showdown. Lastly, the sex and violence are often embarrassingly gratuitous, evidence of a film franchise in serious decline, from which it sadly never recovered. Both Hammer and director Baker (whose best work was probably the brilliantly suspenseful Quatermass and the Pit in 1967) were capable of far better.

Rating: 4 stars
Summary: Okay Sequel to Taste The Blood of Dracula
Review: Hammer was never able to top Horror of Dracula with any of its sequels. This is a direct sequel to Taste the Blood and it does, however, have its moments.There is one scene involving a matte painting(I suppose) outside the castle that is awesome. The bat-chewing scene is good! One criticism of this film's predecessor was lack of screen time for Lee.Well, critics of an almost Leeless predecessor, this one delivers for you because Lee is given more to do in this one.This one was the last Hammer Dracula to take place in the 19th century.The last two got pretty wild!(Dracula-A.D. 1972 & Satanic Rites of Dracula).

Rating: 2 stars
Summary: Hammer's nominee for Worst Dracula Movie Ever Made
Review: How to explain "Scars of Dracula"? This 1970 film directed by Roy Ward Baker was made by Hammer Studios and stars Christopher Lee as Count Dracula, but has nothing to do with the previous films in the series. When last we saw the count at the end of "Taste the Blood of Dracula" his ashes where in Victorian London. Now the ashes are near his castle in Transylvania and the time appears to be about a century earlier. Go figure. As soon as the count is restored when a giant bat spews blood on his ashes, you know this film is in trouble. We have the villagers going to burn down the castle while Dracula sends a horde of vampire bats to rip their wives and children apart. Years later the movie's main trio of victims arrive upon the scene: good guy Simon Carlson (Dennis Waterman) and charming rogue Paul Carlson (Christopher Matthews) are both in love with Sarah Fransen (Jenny Hanley). Soon not only the Count but his hunchbacked servant Klove (Patrick Troughton) are after the lovely Sarah as well. This time around Dracula is more into physical torture than before and while the eroticism that characterized Hammer's vampire films at this time is present the emphasis is much more on supposedly gory special effects. However, in the end there is yet another totally new way of disposing of Dracula. While I applaud the fact that the script gives Dracula actual lines and gets away from the animalistic version of the Count we get in several Hammer films, there is nothing new here worth pursuing. Even the production values, something of a hallmark with Hammer's films, are notably lacking. Even the title, "Scars of Dracula," is really lame. Fans of Hammer/Dracula/Lee will only watch this one out of a need for a sense of completeness.

Rating: 3 stars
Summary: A lot of Bang for your buck
Review: I bought this DVD rather blindsightedly, if thats a word. I had read a lot about Christofer Lee and Hammer in the "Vampire Book" and seen a few of their Hammer flicks on TMC, so I thought...I was surprised by the quality of the plot and the acting (not Lee though) good sets too but not particularly atmospheric. It isn't clear what period or locale this is (I don't remember the end to "To Drink the Blood...") but it is obvious that the barmaids referring to the cops as "pigs" is an anachronism because Abbie Hoffman coined it a few years before this was made.

You get a lot of stuff on this DVD, which is partly my justification for the impulse buy. You get the movie, an animate slide show and two trailers on the first disc, and Christofer Lee's Documentary and a couple of Music videos on the other. The Documentary is cool, but it seems like Lee is just showing us stuff he has in his house.

Rating: 4 stars
Summary: So-so Movie; GREAT DVD!!!
Review: I don't have much to say about this film that hasn't been said before. It's not Hammer's best ("HORROR OF DRACULA", "BRIDES OF DRACULA", "KISS OF THE VAMPIRE"), nor is it their worst. Christopher Lee has a little more screen time and actually has a few lines, too; but the story (a re-tread of "HORROR OF DRACULA") is tired and dull. The picture and sound are quite nice; too bad the film isn't better. What is GREAT about this DVD is the bonus disc with a hour-long talk by the Master about his films and career and two MUSIC VIDEOS that showcase Lee's fine singing voice. This bonus disc is the ONLY reason to buy the DVD. So it's a 1 star movie, and 5 star bonus disc.

Rating: 3 stars
Summary: Why?
Review: I don't understand why Hammer made this movie. The others follow a sequential pattern, more or less (ok less!) that this one doesn't fit. THe basic story revolves around the eternal love triangle and throw in Dracula. An older brother loves a girl who loves the younger, ne'er-do-well brother. The younger brother leaves town, after being too friendly with the Burgermeister's daughter and ends up at dracula's castle.
The older brother and the girl travel to find him and end up in Dracula's castle. The younger brother is found dead, gruesomely killed, and in a fiery ending, Dracula is immolated and the castle collapses.

Dracula has more lines in this one and it does show that vampires aren't the suave, debonair misunderstood victims of a blood disease. Dracula is cruel, sadistic, maniacal and Lee does a good job portraying him so. The dismemberment scene is done with excruciating detail, unlike a similiar one in Taste the blood of Dracula. The blood splatters, used to show that Dracula drank blood and it got all over the place, are fake looking and unimpressive. I think the original intent was to show the dark side of vampires, not the sanitized portrayal of the other films but it failed in presenting a coherent whole. Rather it was a disjointed production that looked slapped together for a drive-in double feature. Lots of potential that went unrealized.
The scenery is scant and cardboard-like, with very little attempt at realism. The actors are wooden, except for Lee, and you end up not caring whether they live or die. The ending is contrived and you wonder, where did all these people come from?
I disagree with the other reviewers and their praise. It is NOT one of the best or even among the top Hammer films.


<< 1 2 3 4 5 >>

© 2004, ReviewFocus or its affiliates