Scars of Dracula (1970)

I have very opposite impressions about this flick. It is one of the best and, at the same time, one of the worst Dracula movies. Let's start with its positive attributes. When you see dozens of Dracula movies, like I did, after a while pouring sand in the desert becomes tiresome. Truth to be told, there are some that bounce from the classic template, and even some surprisingly original ones, but the vast majority play an identical story with slight variations. This one is quite interesting. It does not stick to the basic plot that we are accustomed to, Dracula doesn't kidnap a girl, there's no professional vampire killers, characters are much more interesting than in most of previous films, and writers have managed to find a way to kill Dracula in the original way with which we have not met before, without getting stupid. Also, movie is the most aggressive and the bloodiest so far. At the other hand, scenography and effects are very bad. Acting is good, but everything else is unconvincing, especially tragicomic bats and scenery that's supposed to be a castle. The only exception is a scene of massacre in the church, which is quite disturbing. Further, even though I have great love for breasts, I think that the big flaw of this film is that the camera incomparably more focuses on boobs of every single female character than on Dracula. Judging by the screen time they occupy in comparison to Dracula, they should be given names and be placed in front of Christopher Lee in ending credits. Recommendation to Hammer fans only.6/10

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

In spite of Christopher Lee's greater than usual screen time and Patrick Troughton's presence, this is by far my least favourite of the Hammer Dracula series. It's a rather uninspired affair. It seems like a hodge-podge of the best bits from the previous five films. It's basically Hammer by numbers. This is an observation rather than a criticism but it's a bit odd that this is the third consecutive "Dracula" film with a major character named Paul! Dennis Waterman is badly miscast as the very post and boring Simon Carlson. It's probably most notable for being Hammer stalwart Michael Ripper's final horror film for the company. He's as good as ever in his rather lacklustre swansong.On the bright side, Christopher Lee is still as wonderfully creepy and entertaining as Count Dracula as usual, in spite of the fact that he had seemingly tired of the role by this point. I liked the fact that it hearkened back to the novel (as well as the first film) in portraying Dracula as an elegant host. This is the first time that he has actually said more than a few, short lines to someone (other than one of his minions) since his conversation with Jonathan Harker in the original film. His death scene was awesome, the best sequence in the film. Patrick Troughton is excellent as is Michael Gwynn as the priest. I've never seen Jenny Hanley in anything before and I was struck by how much she resembled her mother Dinah Sheridan.

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