PDA

View Full Version : Scars of Dracula


dwatts
11-10-2002, 06:13 AM
Wow – Scars of Dracula is a bit of a stinker. Watched it tonight. Both the start and the end are atrocious. Every Hammer Dracula film had two set pieces – the reconstitution at the beginning, and the death at the end.

In this one, the reconstitution comes about because a big fat fake bat flies through a window and pukes blood onto Dracula’s cape. You never get to know where the bat comes from, how it got the blood (I suppose it is a vampire bat) or what prompts it to puke the blood. The end is where Dracula gets struck by lightning, turns into a scarecrow and falls over a cliff.

In between we have tons of footage of that fake bat. He does a bit of killing, but his main task seem to be acting as “Dracula Radar” – where he see’s people coming toward the castle, and then flies to tell Dracula (who, fortunately, speaks bat).

We have another odd scene where Dracula wants to kill a girl who is lying in bed. How does he choose to do it? Fangs? Biting? Nah – he stabs her to death. I guess he wasn’t hungry.

Of course we have the girl wearing the cross. Why they chose this teeny tiny cross I don’t know, but Dracula look a bit of a twit running away from this Kinder cross.

The one plus is that Dracula lair is only accessible by climbing a sheer wall up the side of the castle. We get to see Dracula climbing up – which actually works very well.

The down sides are too numerous to mention. How time plays tricks on you! This and “Brides of Dracula” truly stink.

Fart Lighter
11-10-2002, 10:52 PM
that's what everybody says, but I still rather like this one. The cardboard bat with the nosebleed is a naff, but I did like not having to wait half the film for the count to show up again in this one. Personally, I really like this movie. It's so much mor eintense than the others, even if it's a little off-kilter here and there.

Yowie
11-10-2002, 11:19 PM
One of the biggest problems with Hammer's Dracula series is that you never see Dracula move about his castle, he just stands there saying a few words - if you're lucky. No action at all. No wonder Lee was/is bored with it all, there's absolutely nothing for him to do in these movies but stare mean.

Hammerfan
11-14-2002, 06:51 AM
SCARS OF DRACULA is a stinker, but I find it campy at best. That makes it worth my while. As for Christopher Lee staring meanly, it still scares the hell out of me after all of these years. Guess thats why I'm still a fan.

JW77
11-14-2002, 08:57 AM
I'd say that "Scars" is probably the least of the "period" Hammer Draculas, but it's still a decent ride. I still prefer it to the Draculas that followed.

The fake bats never really bothered me. I've always found that sort of stuff to be part of Hammer's charm.

The DVD isn't bad. Good transfer, and a good commentary by Lee. There's also a bonus DVD in the first pressings, "The Many Faces of Christopher Lee," that's worth owning.

carl.kolchak
11-15-2002, 09:38 AM
Blasphemers! "Scars" is great entertainment! The scene where Michael Ripper knocks on the castle door and says "open up, I have something for you, I'm quite alone" is a classic! And "Brides" is a masterpiece, even if the Baron Meinster does resemble Liberace.

-en
11-15-2002, 10:58 PM
i just saw this recently and it's the first Hammer film i have seen. i wasn't very impressed at all and nodded off a few times. if SCARS is supposed to be a great film, then i'm not so anxious to rush out and see any other Hammer films.

Yowie
11-16-2002, 01:15 PM
Don't worry, it's NOT supposed to be a great film. I think it's widely considered one of the lowpoints of Hammer, it's certainly the least interesting Hammer Dracula IMO.

mac-hammer-fan
11-24-2002, 02:48 PM
I totally disagree that this movie (or BRIDES) is a stinker.
It was well directed, atmospheric and the acting was good. And the special effects were definitely more convincing than in Jesus Franco's "COUNT DRACULA". (however, I still enjoyed this movie too)
You can't deny that Christopher Lee is a talented actor and he remains the best Dracula imo, even better than Bela Lugosi.
I would call total crap such as DRACULA DIRTY OLD MAN or FILLE DE DRACULA real stinkers.
:mad:

EPKJ
01-13-2003, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by -en
i just saw this recently and it's the first Hammer film i have seen. i wasn't very impressed at all and nodded off a few times. if SCARS is supposed to be a great film, then i'm not so anxious to rush out and see any other Hammer films.

Then I recommend that you don't see any other Hammer films. Scars Of Dracula is fairly representative of Hammer films with regard to style. If you fell asleep on this film, you would fall asleep on most Hammer films. They are not for everyone.

EPKJ
01-13-2003, 02:49 PM
I cannot agree that this film stinks. First, to criticize it for the special effects would require one to condemn all Hammer films on the same basis. None of them had great special effects, so, why single out this film? Second, I actually rate Scars Of Dracula as one of the best in the Hammer Dracula series. The scene when the villagers return to find their families butchered in the church is chilling, and one of the best scenes in any Hammer film. Finally, the film could have been better, but, so what? This could be said of most films. The bottom line is that Scars Of Dracula entertains. It is worth watching just to see Patrick Troughton and Michael Ripper.