This film begins with perhaps the most bizarre resurrection scene in a Dracula film that I can recall. A giant cheap plastic bat hovers over the powdered remains of Drac and then the bat starts puking blood on the remains--at which point the body reconstitutes itself. Weird AND stupid due to the $3.98 spent on "special effects".

After this inauspicious beginning, the killing naturally begins. The nearby townspeople prove that they've never read any vampire novels or seen any Dracula films. They attack the castle (a good idea) and they light it on fire (a dumb and pointless idea). No stake in the heart, no holy water, no garlic,...not even a flaming bag of poo on the front steps...nothing other than tossing some torches into the castle. And, surprise, surprise, this ticks off the Price of Darkness (duh)--resulting in a splendid little massacre. And, considering the half-hearted attack on the vampire, I think they kind of deserved this.

What follows is a tiny bit of gratuitous nudity (heck, it WAS made in 1970 as apparently they'd just invented sex) and the story itself finally gets going. What follows is pretty typical of the Hammer Film Studios Dracula films. Christopher Lee is only rarely in the film and much of it consists of people stumbling along looking for their missing friend until the final confrontation which ends the vampire menace forever....or at least until the next film!

Aside from a servant for Dracula who actually manages to betray his master, there really isn't a lot innovative or memorable about the film. In fact, the end of the film is quite stupid and contradictory. First, the fake bat returns for one of the silliest death scenes in memory (the priest). Second, how Drac dies defies all lore from previous films and maybe makes the half-hearted attempt by the villagers seem not so dumb after all. The only reason this silly film, even merits a 4 is because of the exquisite supporting performance by the blonde lady's boobs--which play an amazingly prominent role in the film!!

Considering Hammer had already essentially made the the same film many times already, there isn't a lot of reason to see this particular film unless you are insanely compulsive (like me) and you want to see every Hammer film--even the highly repetitive and derivative ones.

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

The Scars of Dracula has a special spot in my heart, being one of the very first horror films (Hammer or otherwise) that I had the pleasure of watching. That was many years ago, so I felt the film to be ripe for reappraisal; I'm pleased to say that it holds up very well as a horror film, offering all the right ingredients. However, it goes without saying that this is one of the 'cheesiest' films ever released by Hammer, and as a result the critics hated it, and it has been dissed by pretty much everyone since then. I'll be perfectly honest and say that I'd much rather watch this than the rather tepid Taste the Blood of Dracula.

It seems that this vampire flick was shot on the cheap, with models of castles that look like models, only a couple of locations and some rubbishy special effects. It has to be said, however, that this only adds to the charm. The Scars of Dracula is a period film through and through, with fun scenery and lots of villagers setting fire to stuff and waving spades around. There are also some of those classic Hammer trademark shots of carriages running wild in the woods; the same woods are also used for some good scene-setting, with weird animal howls playing on the soundtrack every second or so.

The plot is very basic stuff and padded out at 1 ½ hours with some fairly unnecessary material. The opening of the film is unusual and uneven, appearing to be more of a bedroom farce than a Hammer horror! There's gratuitous nudity and CARRY ON-style humour in abundance, as cad Christopher Matthews beds various women before winding up at the castle. Sadly, Matthews is then replaced, PSYCHO-style, by his staid and rather dull brother, played by Dennis Waterman in an early role. Waterman is pretty wooden here it has to be said, and definitely one of the film's weak spots.

The Scars of Dracula offers plenty of glamour for the male audience, with numerous heaving bosoms and women who only ever wear low-cut gear. It also ups the violence quota considerably, with truly disgusting effects showing the aftermath of bat attacks, with eyeballs and skin hanging from bloodied faces. Christopher Lee is on very good form here; despite the overdone white makeup, he looks extremely attractive, and has plenty of screen time and dialogue, unlike in some of the other movies in the series. Some scenes really push the censors, like when he knifes a vampire bride to death; none of it makes much sense, but it is jolly good fun! Also upping the entertainment value are two sterling supporting performances from Michael Ripper, the Hammer stalwart, who finally gets a larger role, and secondly Patrick Troughton as snivelling manservant Klove, who gets abused with a red-hot sword in another memorable sequence.

Although Peter Cushing wasn't around to appear, he's replaced by Michael Gwynn as the local priest. Gwynn is familiar from his role as Frankenstein's Creature in THE REVENGE OF FRANKENSTEIN although his character isn't as sympathetic this time around. The FX shots of the rubbery bats are funny to watch, whilst the powerhouse ending sees Dracula struck by lightning and falling to his fiery death; it's still one of my favourite endings in a Hammer film, even if the rubber Dracula mask is a little too obvious.