Scars of Dracula

This review is for the Blu-Ray edition of 'Scars of Dracula' released by Shout! Factory in 2019.First off, I'd like to point out that my rating is for the release, not the plot of the movie.This movie is rated 'R'. There is minor nudity and no foul language. Today this movie would likely be rated 'PG-13'.*****NOTE***** For those new to this movie, this is an almost 50 year old movie that was produced in 1970. It was a lower budget movie, even for it's time. If you are not a fan of these types of movies, don't expect big budget production values and special effects.TIMELINE/CONTINUITY: 'Scars of Dracula' is the 6th Hammer Horror Dracula movie (if you include 'Brides of Dracula' in which Dracula does not appear). It is Christopher Lee's 5th appearance as Dracula. He would appear in 7 altogether. This movie is supposed to continue the continuity of the other Dracula movies from Hammer but does not. It was not known whether or not Lee would play the role of Dracula. Therefore, the series was planned to be rebooted. When Lee signed on, Hammer did what they could to tie the movie to the previous movies. The continuity is all messed up. Dracula is resurrected nowhere near where he died in the previous movie. His assistant, Klove, is not the same character as in 'Dracula: Prince of Darkness'. Make of it, what you will.BLU-RAY: I think the picture is excellent. The colors are bright and I see virtually no flaws in the print. I would expect that anybody purchasing this release for the picture will be quite happy with this version. You can watch the movie in either 1.66:1 or 1.85:1 aspect ratios.EXTRA'S:-The inside cover of the Blu-Ray case features a production still.-Audio Commentary with film historian Constantine Nasr: The packaging claims that historian Ted Newsom is part of the commentary but he is not involved in the commentary. This mistake was probably made because these two do many commentaries together. Nasr, as always, focuses on the original script. Since he is alone, he does this considerably more in this commentary. He reads it throughout. As he reads the script, he points out all the changes. This sort of thing can be useful in understanding why some parts of movies don't seem to make sense. Often there have been changes to the script that make certain scenes or dialogue seem odd or out of place. Nasr brings in a music expert to comment on the music for about 5 minutes.-Audio Commentary with Christopher Lee, director, Roy Ward Baker and film historian Marcus Hearn: Christopher Lee says that Michael Ripper was 86 at the time of this commentary which would place the date it was recorded in 1999 or 20 years before the release of the edition being reviewed. This commentary focuses heavily on stories about Hammer Film Productions and the people that worked for the company. Lee likes to go off on tangents and tells a lot of stories. Lee dominates but Baker contributes too. Lee is very negative in general. He says at the end of the movie that he believes this is the first time he ever watched this movie. His negativity is prevalent throughout the commentary. Baker, who didn't like the movie, is a lot more positive. Marcus Hearn basically asks questions and provides some info when Lee and Baker have trouble recalling certain tidbits. Hearn jumps in and asks a question whenever the commentary goes silent for a little while. Lee is better in interviews than he is at commentary.-'Blood Rites: Inside Scars of Dracula' featurette: This is a new 18 minute documentary on 'Scars of Dracula'. Jenny Hanley, who plays Sarah, is interviewed as well as several film historians. She says Lee was overly serious and wasn't very fun to be around. Hanley displays the cross she used in the movie. It belonged to her and she was asked to bring it to the set.-Theatrical Trailer-Still Gallery-Subtitles*****WARNING - LOTS OF SPOILERS BELOW THIS POINT*****PLOT/SUMMARY: Dracula is resurrected in his coffin when a vampire bat drips blood onto his ashes. Dracula immediately gets to work killing a young girl. The villagers storm his castle and light it on fire to no avail. Dracula's assistant, Klove, is at the castle when the villagers attack and he tells them it's useless to burn the castle because the flames won't reach Dracula. Dracula has placed his coffin an a room with no entrance, other than a window, high up in the castle. When the villagers go back to town, they discover that all the village women have been slaughtered in the local church, which they were using as a sanctuary until the men got back, by vampire bats.Paul Carlson is a bit of a playboy. He is caught sleeping with the burgomeister's daughter but takes off just in time. Paul is then forced to flee a party being held for his sister, Sarah, but not before he gives her a framed picture. Unfortunately, the glass cover is cracked so he takes the picture back to repair it. Paul's brother, Simon, was also at the party. He has fallen in love with Sarah. Paul jumps out of a window into a driverless coach and the horses, spooked, take off. He ends up in a small village. A serving girl lets him in the establishment she works at but the barkeep kicks Paul out. Paul then comes across a carriage in the woods after the carriage he arrived in seemingly took off on it's own. He enters and is immediately brought to Dracula's castle. Once inside the castle, he meets Tania. Dracula enters and orders Klove to prepare a room for Paul. While Paul is in his room, Tania enters and asks Paul to help her escape the castle. A short while later, just when Tania reveals her fangs and is about to bite Paul, Dracula enters and savagely stabs her to death with a knife. He locks Paul in his room. Paul notices a window below his bedroom window. He ties bed sheets together to create a makeshift rope and climbs down. Once in the lower room, Klove cuts his makeshift rope and steals Paul's possessions, including his picture frame. Inside the room he has entered, Paul discovers Dracula's coffin. There is no other entrance into the room. Paul is trapped.Simon and Sarah, worried about Paul's disappearance, head out to look for him. They come to the small village which Paul previously visited. The barkeep and other villager are not willing to help but the serving girl tells them that Paul went to the castle. The two head to the castle where they meet Dracula. Dracula takes Sarah to a private bedroom for her to rest. Shortly, Klove discovers that Sarah is the girl in the picture frame. He has fallen in love with the picture and refuses to help Dracula kill Sarah. Sarah has a crucifix around her neck and orders Klove to removie it. Klove refuses. While Dracula is sleeping, he helps Sarah and Simon to escape.Sarah and Simon head back to the village and ask for help. Nobody except the local priest is willing to help. Together, they go to the church and leave Sarah there. The priest tells Simon how to defeat Dracula. The serving girl, disgusted with the village men because they refuse to help, quits and leaves. Unfortunately, shortly thereafter, she meets her demise. While traveling to the castle, the priest weakens. Simon sends him back to the church to protect Sarah. Back at the church, the priest is attacked by a vampire bat and Sarah gets away. She heads back to the castle.Simon gets to the castle and heads for Dracula's chambers. He has a stake ready but Dracula hypnotizes him even though his eyes are closed. Once it's nightfall, Dracula goes after Sarah. Simon revives and finds Paul hanging from a meat hook on the wall. He climbs out of the window and goes to look for Dracula. Meanwhile, Sarah has had her crucifix removed by a vampire bat. Outside on the castle parapet, Klove goes after Dracula. Klove is tossed to his death. Simon picks up a metal spike and impales Dracula with it. It has no effect. Dracula removes the spike and attempts to throw it at Paul but a lightning bolt strikes the spike and incinerates Dracula.PRODUCTION: This movie was released in 1970 and was directed by Roy Ward Baker.-The production values in this movie were hampered due to Hammer losing it's distribution agreement with American production companies. Ultimately it was distributed by the British EMI. EMI would merge with MGM shortly thereafter.-This was the first Hammer film to receive an 'R' rating.-James Bernard was Hammer's most famous composer and he did the score on this movie. It is excellent as usual.-Roy Ward Baker's favorite scene and really the only scene that he likes in the movie, is the one where Dracula climbs from his window to the one above. This scene is today considered the most notable thing about this movie.-Michael Ripper makes his usual appearance, in a Hammer film, as the barkeeper. Ripper appeared in 33 films for Hammer. This would be his final Hammer Horror movie. He would appear in another non-horror movie for Hammer.-Patrick Troughton took part in this movie because he didn't want to be typecast as Dr. Who. He had just finished his 3 year run as the Doctor when he took the part as the vile Klove.-The opening scene of Dracula being revived was filmed at the end of the production. It was not in the original script and it looks tacked on.-The voice of Sarah is dubbed. This sort of thing was quite normal for Hammer Film Productions. They very often dubbed the voices of their actresses.-Other than the opening resuscitation scene, Dracula doesn't appear in the movie until 30 minutes have passed.-There was an entire scene that was excised from the movie. This involved Dracula drinking blood from the dead corpse of Tania. WHAT OTHER HAMMER HORROR MOVIES DID ROY WARD BAKER DIRECT?:Roy Ward Baker says that this is the only true horror film that he directed for Hammer. He says that all of his other movies were more of the science fiction genre or weren't true horror. I agree to an extent. Baker says in the commentary that he had only seen the first Dracula movie that Hammer had made, 'Horror of Dracula (U.S. title)', when asked to direct the movie. He then watched the others. Here is a list of the movies that Roy Ward Baker directed for Hammer:Quatermass & The Pit (1967) - Pure science fiction/fantasyThe Anniversary (1968) - A comedy/dramaMoon Zero Two (1969) - Pure science fictionThe Vampire Lovers (1970) - Vampire stories are normally horror movies. This one doesn't really feel like a horror movie. It's more of a 'femme fatale' movie.Dr. Jekyll & Sister Hyde (1971) - Dr. Jekyll movies are hybrid sci-fi/horror movies.The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires (1974)- A minor appearance for Dracula in this martial arts/horror hybrid.Baker made some horror movies for other production companies. Among these are:Asylum (1972)The Vault of Horror (1973)And Now the Screaming Starts! (1973)The Monster Club (1981)In addition, Baker directed 'A Night to Remember' (1958)COMMENTS: WHAT I LIKE:-'Scars of Dracula' doesn't follow the normal rules of horror movies from the time period of which it was made. Initially, the audience is led to believe that Paul is the protagonist even if he is a flawed character.-Paul's shocking death. Seeing Paul hanging on a meat hook is jarring when you see it. Up until that point, the movie keeps you guessing as to whether or not he is alive.-The movie takes full advantage of the ratings system just implemented by including scenes outside the norm up until that point. You see all the women in the village brutally slaughtered, inside a church no less! You then see a priest murdered inside the church.-The interior of Dracula's castle looks pretty good. Despite the low budget, the interior sets looked just about as good as any of the higher budget movies.-Probably due to Christopher Lee's incessant complaining about the story diverging from the original by Bram Stoker, Hammer based some lines and scenes from the book. They also made Dracula more in character of the original. Overall, I think his character is an improvement from some of the previous movies.-The most memorable scene of the movie was Dracula scaling the wall. Baker felt this was his big contribution to the Dracula series. This scene was taken directly from the novel. WHAT I DON'T LIKE:-I don't like Dracula's appearance in this movie. I can't quite put my finger on it but he just doesn't look right. He looks like he has too much make-up on. I know he is supposed to look 'pasty' white but he just doesn't look good. He looks almost like he is a tired old man even though Lee was only 48 at the time of the movie.-The paintings used to depict the exterior of the castle looked cheap. The exteriors of the castle just don't seem to match the interiors.-The view from the bedroom window, looking down the side of the castle to Dracula's chambers, changes.-The bats. I think they were overused. It's not as if they looked good. The usage of these bats (probably just the same bat) puts an emphasis on the low budget nature of this movie.-I think that using the footage of Dracula disintegrating from the previous movie, 'Taste the Blood of Dracula', shown in reverse was a bad idea. That scene combined with the bat dripping blood on Dracula, just does not look good. How did Dracula control these bats even though he was dead?-The castle doesn't really look ruined after the fire. It doesn't help matters that the castle is made mostly of stone and it can't burn. Nevertheless, Dracula complains about the destruction.-For once, I agree with Christopher Lee about Dracula's behavior. It seemed out of character for him to use a knife to butcher a young girl. It also seemed out of character for him to whip Klove.-The plaque on Dracula's coffin looked way too new.-New powers that are not explained before they suddenly show up. I believe this sort of thing is called 'Deus Ex Machina'. Dracula is asleep during the daytime yet he manages to hypnotize Paul with closed eyes.-The ending. Dracula seems to have some incredibly bad luck. Lightning destroying Dracula? We are routinely told that vampires are immortal, yet every Dracula movie finds a new way for Dracula to be killed. CHRISTOPHER LEE AND DRACULA: It is well known that Lee played Dracula seven times for Hammer Horror. In addition he played Dracula a few other times either as a spoof or for a Spanish version of Dracula. Ever since his first appearance, Lee had to be convinced to play the role in each succeeding movie. His main complaint was that the new movies were not in the spirit of the original story as written by Bram Stoker. He famously claims that in the second movie, 'Dracula: Prince of Darkness', that he refused to speak any lines. This is probably not true. The writer, Jimmy Sangster, says he did not write any lines for Dracula. Lee wanted Dracula's lines to come from the book. This is probably what led him to play the role of Dracula for Jess Franco's version. Lee claims that he agreed to the role in his last three or four Dracula movies because he didn't want to be responsible for putting a whole crew of people out of work. Lee also complains about modern movies having too much blood and dislikes 'girly' scenes. He believes that 'less is more' and prefers to leave things to the imagination. I can only partially agree with him. You might as well read a book if you really want to leave things to the imagination. I've listened to Lee in countless interviews. While he makes for a good interview, I find his never ending complaining about Dracula to be depressing. WHAT ARE THE SCARS OF DRACULA?: This is not really clear. It can refer to psychological scars as well as physical scars. Klove has some terrible scars but it's uncertain if they helped inspire movie's title. The 'Scars' can refer to Dracula having been psychologically scarred after his castle was torched. Another possible inspiration might be the psychological scars of the surviving villagers after all the women of the village were murdered in the church. I guess it's up to the viewer to decide. OTHER COMMENTS:-This movie is often mistakenly called 'The Scars of Dracula' with 'The' added in.-In the original script, Paul was the brother of Sarah, not the brother of Simon. This would explain the sort of strange love triangle that doesn't really develop.-When Paul jumps out of the window at the party, he tears a large whole in the top of the carriage.The films budget shows as it's obvious that the top of the carriage has no damage as it travels through the woods.-Paul seemed surprised when Dracula told him his name. Why? Nobody else knew who Dracula was. This is not explained. Paul suddenly wants to leave the castle. Perhaps this was due to a script change?-The serving girl tells Simon and Sarah that Paul went to the castle. How would she know this? He didn't tell her that he was going there.-Paul was wearing anachronistic red underwear when he jumped out of bed with Tania. Obviously, they skimped on the budget and didn't film alternate scenes where his underwear wasn't showing.-Why are the villagers so secretive about Paul? This doesn't make much sense. Why not just tell Paul's friends that he was there and he left?-Why does Klove stay in such a decrepit room if he has the whole castle to stay in?-I'm nitpicking, but the crack in the glass of the picture frame moves each time we see it.-I'm not quite sure how Simon got his rope back in order to climb back to the bedroom window.-Where was the serving girl going in the middle of the night on foot with no village anywhere near the one she left?CONCLUSIONS: This movie has a reputation for being terrible. I do not agree with that reputation. I hate calling movies 'underrated'. That term is overused. I am saying that this movie is better than it's reputation. I don't think it's the worst of the Hammer Dracula movies. In fact, I would place it in the middle of the pack. Sure, the production values were lower due to Hammer losing it's American sponsors. This doesn't take away from the plot. I think the plot was decent and it wasn't always obvious how Dracula would be defeated and by whom.The release is very good. You get some nice extra's and the picture is excellent. If you are a Hammer Horror fan then you will probably want this release.RATINGS:Picture: 9/10 or 4 1/2 starsPlot: 6.5/10 or 3 1/2 starsSFX: 5/10 - Dracula's make-up and the bats look terrible. The sets look nice.Extra's: 7/10 or 3 1/2 stars. You get two audio commentaries along with a 'making of' documentary.Overall: 5 stars - I'm rating this based on the release, not the quality of movie plot.WHAT'S NEXT FOR DRACULA? Dracula returns in 'Dracula A.D. 1972'. This movie takes place in it's own timeline. Christopher Lee returns as Dracula in modern day London (modern day in 1972!).

With the exception of "Horror of Dracula," none of the Hammer Films featuring Bram Stoker's infamous creature of the night can be called classics. That said, "Scars of Dracula"comes very close. Christopher Lee's commanding prescence even added to the effectiveness of "Dracula, Prince of Darkness." This is despite the fact that he refused to speak In the picture, finding his lines of dialog to be inane. Yet his presence, the excellent supporting cast and Terrence Fisher's direction make it worth watching. The sumptuous Hammer Films look continued to sustain the series right up to this, the fifth film to star Lee in the title role. Lee had input into a number of aspects of the movie, particularly his dialog and the highly effective segment in which the count crawls eerily up the castle wall (which was taken directly from Stoker's novel). The cast is first-rate and includes Patrick Troughton (Dr. Who #2), Dennis Waterman ("New Tricks"), Michael Gwynn ("Revenge of Frankenstein") and the always reliable Michael Ripper. Despite the accolades bestowed upon the "more faithful" Harry Alan Towers/Jesus Franco production, "Count Dracula," the latter film's only striking attribute is the de-aging of Dracula over the course of the story. Otherwise, It is an uneven, turgid movie. In comparison, even "Brides of Dracula," which shifted the focus to vampire hunter Peter Cushing (reprising his role as Van Helsing), was more enjoyable and energetic. Despite being cited as marking the beginning of the decline of the series, "Scars" is consistently involving and gives Lee his most lines of dialog since the 1958 original. It is a praise-worthy follow-up to "Dracula Has Risen From the Grave" and "Taste the Blood of Dracula." Say what you will about them, the Hammer Dracula movies are genuinely entertaining -- right up to and including the final two films in the series, which reunite Lee with Cushing, yet are hampered by their modern-day settings. I'm delighted to add "Scars of Dracula" to my motion picture library and am looking forward to watching it multiple times in the future.

I'm a long-time fan of the Christopher Lee 'Dracula' films, but this is the one that evaded me for a long time, being out-of-print and not having a U.S. Blu-ray release. I read up on quite a bit about the movie, a lot of positive and negative reviews. Thanks to Scream! Factory, I finally got to watch it myself. Personally, I have mixed feelings about it the first time around. It's very much as cheesy as some say it is, at times. The bat prop is VERY corny (and annoying). The stages used for Dracula's castle bother me at times, and at others I really like it because it harkens back to the Universal Monster days. The characters/actors are no more or no less memorable or forgettable than any of the other 'Dracula' films; just your typical Hammer cast. The story plays out a little odd to me, but then again, most of the Dracula's aren't exactly known for their continuity or for making sense, entirely. Lee certainly has the most dialogue of any Dracula film, here. He comes off more so as he did in the first film; a count with a castle, known for his hospitality, luring in young victims. In my opinion, Lee looks his best as the character in Scars. Overall, I enjoyed it and will probably love it more and more with each viewing, as I did with most of the other movies. I'm not one to rank film franchises, but I would place 'Scars' just slightly under 'Risen' and 'Taste the Blood', but certainly above 1972 and 'Satanic Rites'.

Well have never ever seen this film at all. It starts of a bit slow but soon speeds up and a reasonably good story line to boot, A lot of the stars in the film went on to bigger parts later, like the man servant who is a doctor who star, and Dennis water-man who was later to be a big name on the TV. Some of the bats one could see being bounced around while on elastic but again for it's time was good.

I really like Hammer films. I wanted to like this, since seeing it in my youth i recall variable bloody portions of it. As a whole piece of work, and it is work sitting through this, the whole is not the sum of its parts. The whole is a cheap mess and i deplore myself for saying such things about the marvelous Hammer studios..Chris Lee scowls, as well he might with an appallingly feeble script. There are other people in it, none of them acting likeable, against a backdrop of very cheap sets cheaply shot. Whereas in the past Hammer could arrange a set to its best advantage, Scars of Drac simply seems cobbled together and i've seen some cobbling in my time and this is indeed, cobblers.The superior wacky 'Drac 1972' is in fact more entertaining and has a cult following, a strange cult, wearing kaftans & jigging about to images of caroline munro saturated in kensington gore..Scars of drac however is as lamentable a construction in set design, acting range & weak production values as anything dredged from the late Hammer period can be. But at least Chris Lee gets to mutter some dialogue.Upon re-watching this once again i am in fact convinced that it has some peculiar effect, what with the blood letting & the gory details. Palatable, but not a wine to be consumed with food. Perhaps a bit earthy, maybe the vintage is corked...

Now here's a great film for a laugh. It's like a Carry On film without the jokes and innuendos. The acting is appalling, the plot predictable and the special effects are something to behold.....the flying vampire bats are epic and one of the best bits of the film, very amusing. If you want to be frightened by a scary movie this is is not for you, but having said that I really enjoyed watching it.

scars of Dracula ,Christopher Lee a don't think this horror movie enven with Christopher Lee in it was is best horror movie the film is not as good compared to all is other horror movies is as made its watcher bill and that's it really thank you [email protected]

I'm giving this top marks for the price and delivery. The film itself is wonderfully awful. I am a big fan of the Hammer Horrors, but Christopher Lee looks like he wanted to be somewhere else. The acting by Jenny Hanley and Dennis Waterman is as wooden as it comes. It will add to my collection but I doubt it will be get much viewing time.