Cineanalyst The sixth film in Hammer's Dracula series and the second of the series to be released in 1970 alone, "Scars of Dracula" is a mostly lackluster addition. Although it resembles Bram Stoker's novel in a few ways, which is more than can be said of most of the follow-ups to Hammer's original 1958 adaptation, it doesn't adapt any of the novel's themes in particularly interesting ways. Hammer's prior 1970 Dracula film, "Taste the Blood of Dracula," on the other hand, did update the sexual hypocrisy of Stoker's 19th-Century tale for the era of Vietnam and modern youth counterculture. In that regard, it was far more in the spirit of Stoker than is "Scars of Dracula," despite the latter film sharing more in common with the novel's story particulars.As in the novel, here, Dracula has some control over animals— specifically, vampire bats. Unfortunately, the film is full of cheesy fake bats, but this does lead to the clearest view yet in a Hammer film of Castle Dracula, from a bat's-eye viewpoint. This time, the castle is on an impossible cliff's edge in some Germanic village (the castle and general settings of these movies keeps changing from film to film and is best when, as here, the exact locations are ambiguous). The bloody church scene might also be the best part in this film. Although, when we see the bats attacking and not just the aftermath, it is as hilarious for its cheesiness as it is gruesome.Christopher Lee's Dracula gets some lines again, too, and he's once- again a welcoming host—offering his guests drugged wine and beds for the night. Paul's visit, in particular, recalls Jonathan Harker's stay from Stoker. Clearly, since the kids in "Taste the Blood of Dracula" tarnished his home by making it over as a church and since the village mob this time feebly attempted to burn it down, Dracula has had time to do some interior decorating. He's decided to embrace a red theme this time, even including red candles. It accentuates his natural bloodlust well. Also from Stoker, there's a shot of Dracula scaling the outside walls of his castle. The last and first time this may've been done in a film was the Turkish adaptation, "Drakula Istanbul'da" (1953). Meanwhile, the business with Sarah's portrait recalls the device used in "Nosferatu" (1922) and several subsequent Stoker adaptations, but which is not in the novel.Otherwise, "Scars of Dracula" is sometimes dull in its plotting, sexist at other times and generally follows the horror cliché of promiscuous characters dying (Paul and the barmaid) and virgins surviving (Simon and Sarah). There are two brothers. Paul's the Don Juan of the family, and his adventure includes a supposedly- funny storyline regarding the burgomaster's daughter accusing him of rape. Carrying over Hammer's introduction of nudity to their series from "Taste the Blood of Dracula," this time they show us the backside, including as the daughter is chased up a staircase by her father. Next, the film follows Paul's chivalrous brother, Simon, as he annoyingly tries to ditch Sarah thrice before only temporarily succeeding the fourth time during their travels to the castle. Inexplicably, these brothers are like catnip to the ladies. It must be because of manly lines such as when Simon informs, "I can take care of myself, Sarah can't." Oh, brother.There's another slave for Dracula named Klove, as there was in Hammer's "Dracula: Prince of Darkness" (1966). Two characters in the same movie think it's a good idea to sneak into empty carriages; spoilers, it's not a good idea. There's a female vamp who claims to be a prisoner at the castle, a la Hammer's original 1958 film. Dracula stabs her to death, and he scars his slave with a flaming- hot sword. For the finale, Dracula's combustibility from a lightning strike was one of the strangest and weakest deaths yet in the series.(Mirror Note: Like another 1970 Dracula film starring Christopher Lee, Franco's fairly-faithful adaptation, this one also inexplicably has a mirror inside Castle Dracula. This time, there's a relatively small mirror in the room where Paul and Sarah stay. The female vampire is seen through this mirror, although since she is also killed by Dracula's blade, she's an odd one of her species in general. Hammer had screwed up vampire reflections already in "Dracula has Risen from the Grave" (1968), too.)

Rainey Dawn This is a really good Hammer Horror Dracula film. It is the 5th in the Christopher Lee Dracula series and a devilishly delightful one at that! In this one, we finally get to see Dracula on screen more often and hear him speak quite a bit more too. This 5th Lee Dracula film is definitely an excellent, solid Dracula flick.This is a film that critics and fans of Lee's Dracula seems to be split on - some loved it, other hated it. It's really best for the viewer to decide if they liked the movie or not... just like any other film. I am personally pleased with the "Scars of Dracula".Although "Scars" picks up where "Taste the Blood" left off you really don't have to watch any of the other Lee Dracula films to know what is going on in "Scars".9.5/10

Claudio Carvalho In a small village, the villagers decide to destroy Dracula (Christopher Lee) burning his castle to the ground. They protect their wives in the church and head to the castle, but evil wins and their wives are murdered by bats under the command of Dracula.Sometime later, the womanizer Paul Carlson (Christopher Matthews) has one night stand with Alice (Delia Lindsay, who is the burgomaster's daughter. He is surprised by her father and flees from the town in a coach. He arrives at the village late night and the landlord of the inn refuses to lodge him. He seeks shelter in Dracula's castle and disappears. His brother Simon Carlson (Dennis Waterman) and his girlfriend Sarah Framsen (Jenny Hanley) seeks Paul out and arrive at the inn where Paul was expelled. Nobody gives any information for them but the servant Julie (Wendy Hamilton) tells that Paul has gone to the castle. Simon and Sarah go to the castle and are welcomed by Count Dracula. Will they escape alive from the vampire?"Scars of Dracula" is a violent movie by Hammer with Dracula. The director Roy Ward Baker explores the bright colors to make a gore movie. One of the best scenes in this movie is when Dracula leaves his lair crawling on the outside wall since the room does not have any other exit but the window. The actresses are beautiful and voluptuous and the special effects are reasonable for a 1970 movie. My vote is seven.Title (Brazil): "O Conde Drácula" ("The Count Dracula")

callanvass 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