Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Cooktopi The acting in this movie is really good.

Bumpy Chip It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Cheryl A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

Smoreni Zmaj 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

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.)

LeonLouisRicci Opinions Vary Wildly on this Ongoing Series Followup. It Straddles the Fine Line between Camp and Sadistic Bloodletting.The Poor "Bat". This Nocturnal Mammal is Easy Fodder for Ridicule in Pre-Modern Horror Films. Was there ever a Good or Respectable Rendition on Screen. Usually Seen as just what They are. Rubber, Awkward Props on a Wire. This is probably "Scars" Weakest element, and for Toppers, there are many Scenes with Dracula's Totem Dominion Displayed throughout.This is Hammer's most Gruesome and Gory of the "Dracula" Movies, one of the Things that puts the Film on its Supporters Side, and the "Bats" Carnage is Substantial. The Church Aftermath is Chilling.Chris Lee has a lot more to Say in Comparison to some of the others, so that is a Plus. The Budget for this one was Slashed and it Shows in Spots. Dracula's Subordinate and Whipping Post, "Living" with Him in the Castle, along with a "Bride", is Integral to the Plot and is Touchingly Portrayed by Patrick Troughton.Overall, if You Like Your Hammer "Draculas" with Plenty of the Red Stuff, and Cleavage Galore, You will Accentuate the Positive with this one. But if You have No Tolerance for Rubber Bats, Not So Much.No Matter the Divide among Outspoken Viewers, if it's a Hammer Movie, it's Worth a Watch. This one Rides the New Violence like No Other Hammer Film Before, for Better or Worse.

Prichards12345 This is quite appreciably Hammer's poorest Dracula movie, with cardboard sets, uninterested actors, and a general air of decrepitude: thus Hammer ushered in the 70s. Together with the slightly better but banal The Vampire Lovers and the dreadful Lust For A Vampire, this lot just about put paid to Hammer Films as a commerically successful company. They manged to carry on for a few more years and made some much better movies along the way, but Scars is pretty much a stake through the heart.Denis Waterman, best known to UK viewers as Regan's up-for-a-punch-up Cock-er-ney side kick in The Sweeney, and the tough Cock-er-ney ex-boxer in Minder, is rather charmingly cast as a posh student lawyer in search of his missing brother.He almost brings it off, too.Hammer seem to have made some attempt to placate Christopher Lee, who was growing increasingly disenchanted at playing Dracula; they cover Stoker's original novel a little more (including a brief scaling of the castle walls by The Count himself) and give Lee a bit more to do.Unfortunately, the borrowings from Psycho become rather obvious, with Dracula even stabbing his vampire bride. Add a Benny Hill-style cameo from Bob Todd, some lame double entendres and Michael Ripper's comedy pub where no one can get in (this happens at least 3 times in the movie) and you have a pretty poor film.Personally I think the acting honours should go to Patrick Troughton's eyebrows, Micheal Ripper's conning him into opening the gates of the castle is priceless, though for all the wrong reasons - "Open up, I've got something here for you!" The film's best moment comes when the priest helping our intrepid vampire hunter is mercilessly bitten and clawed to death by the Count's pet bat. Gory but extremely well done, which is more than I can say for the bats other appearances.Hammer's modern day follow-up Dracula AD 72 is just as bad, but considerably more entertaining: Scars went out on a double bill with Horror Of Frankenstein, surely making it one of the worst double bills ever inflicted on a cinema audience....