Horror Classics: Scars of Dracula (1970)

Our Dracula marathon is almost through, but it seems that things aren't improving for the prince of darkness...unfortunately. Christopher Lee's portrayal of the villainous vampire in 1958 catapulted him to superstardom - in a manner of speaking. He became the horror genre's new darling of sorts which, as he soon discovered, turned out to be a double-edged sword.

Lee was still refusing the role and being essentially coerced into it - which I discussed in my review of Dracula has Risen from the Grave. When asked about Scars in an interview, Christopher said:

"I was a pantomime villain. Everything was over the top, especially the giant bat whose electrically motored wings flapped with slow deliberation as if it were doing morning exercises."

All things considered, I have to agree with him in a lot of ways, we'll get to why in a bit. Now, I didn't find a lot of behind the scenes info this time around, but I did find something interesting. As the films began to lose money, the American distributors were obviously unhappy. How unhappy were they? Well, they didn't want to work with Hammer Studios anymore which meant that the film budgets were cut significantly.

The Story

Scars of Dracula starts out on shaky ground with the resurrection of Dracula. A short while later, an angry mob assembles at the castle to destroy the vampire. Things...don't go according to plan, the count is locked safely away and takes revenge by slaughtering every woman in the village as they hide in the local church.

Some time later (presumably a few years or so), a young man named Simon and his girlfriend Sarah come to the village. They're looking for Simon's missing brother, Paul, who was last seen at the village headed towards the castle in the hills...I'll give you one guess as to whose castle that is.

Unfortunately, the villagers aren't being very helpful.

What I Liked about the Film

Well...the on-location stuff is nice to look at and the sets are well made. James Bernard's music is stellar, as always, and the tone and pacing are consistent. The performances are pretty good, Christopher Lee gets a lot more to say and do this time around which is nice. As for the other actors, they hold their own very well.

The effects work isn't great, but I liked how a lot of it was done. Okay, I think that's pretty much it so let's move on.

What I didn't Like about the Film

Let's start with the pacing, it's slow to the point of being an absolute slog to get through at times. As for the performances, as good as they were, there were a few issues that I had. For starters, the characters are just so plain! Sarah is nice to look at, but she does practically nothing. Simon isn't much better either as he spends the bulk of the film complaining about everything.

Now, Christopher Lee - as I said before - has a lot more to say and do in this one than he had before. With that said, it doesn't amount to much because it's really just a repetition of the 1958 film - especially where Paul meets Dracula.

Dracula is also a lot more violent and sadistic in this film than he's ever been. Apart from punishing the angry mob by using bats to kill their wives, he also stabs his vampire slave to death after she sleeps with Paul, and later burns his other servant's back with a red-hot saber. That sadistic violence doesn't fit with the character at all. He's supposed to be a menacing nobleman who doesn't seem threatening until later on. That over-the-top violence feels kind of pointless.

Scars has a Special Place for Me

Scars of Dracula has a special place in my heart when it comes to Dracula films because it was the first Hammer Dracula film I ever watched. With that in mind, even with rose colored glasses I can't think of a better word to describe the film than 'meh' - which isn't necessarily a compliment!