Better Late Then Never

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

Well, Dracula usually had a servant in these films, no matter what & I can't quite remember if they usually crossed him, but the one here does- -or tries to anyway. This time, Hammer tries what may have been there first twist on the old themes--having the Count destroyed by fire. Of course, nothing ever holds him down forever, does it.Aside from the fiery climax, there is the twist of Dracula controlling bats and having them do some of his dirty work. Nice scenes of the bats destroying the villagers and that one scene near the end where the heroine's crucifix gets removed. The usual stalwart performances from all involved--and now that I think about it, another Bride of Dracula who gets destroyed by the master (nice work).The usual good Hammer entertainment....

The last of the period Dracula films from Hammer finds Sir Christopher Lee in fine form. He's especially evil and sadistic as he goes about doing what he does best. The prologue sees him resurrected (in a rather novel way), and soon targeted by the nearby villagers, who attempt to burn down his castle. Some time later, an insatiable young rascal named Paul (Christopher Matthews) ends at Castle Dracula in an odd turn of events. When he disappears, his brother Simon (Dennis Waterman) and Simons' girlfriend Sarah (Jenny Hanley) come looking for him, and they must do battle with the nefarious Count.The screenplay by Anthony Hinds is contrived and doesn't always make sense, but director Roy Ward Baker delivers an agreeable shocker. It stands out from other Hammer Draculas by the nature of its violence and dark tone. The prologue ends in a horrible, fatal way for a number of characters. The studio once again is to be commended for their commitment to atmosphere, as there are some spooky shots here and there. Some tension is derived from the fact that the only way into the Counts' private room is a window. The special effects tend towards the unconvincing, at least in terms of the prop bats that pop up throughout. Typically grandiose James Bernard music is a heavy asset. There's a recurring element of comedy (such as the law officers), but not too much of it.Some of the supporting performances aren't all that hot, but the ladies (also including the very appealing Wendy Hamilton as the brave Julie, Delia Lindsay, and Anouska Hempel) are sexy and ravishing. Patrick Troughton is a joy as Draculas' somewhat loyal servant Klove, Michael Gwynn delivers gravitas as a helpful priest, and Michael Ripper (what a treat it is to see him in any Hammer film) has a field day as one of the most common stereotypes in Gothic horror: the hostile, decidedly unhelpful citizen who's always turning outsiders away.This is a good entry in this series that does manage a novel way of dispatching Dracula at the end.Seven out of 10.

One of the more ho-hum entries in the Hammer Dracula series, but still worth a look for fans. The special effects are hokey as all-get-out, the continuity with the prior film isn't there, and Christopher Lee seems bored most of the time. Patrick Troughton is good as the wild-eyed bushy-haired Klove, Dracula's servant. Also, this one uses a lot of elements from the Bram Stoker novel, which is interesting considering it took them six movies to do that. Overall, there are some ridiculous scenes but it's fun for what it is. I disagree with those who claim this is the worst of the series. Satanic Rites and the kung-fu one are much worse.

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