SCARS OF DRACULA (1970)

   Scars of Dracula is Hammer's sixth Dracula film (and the only one I've seen to this point) and chronologically, it makes no damn sense. The beginning depicts a ressurection scene despite the intention for the film to start a whole new series. When it comes down to it, I impose some bias towards the film. It has a spooky castle, thick fog, cheap looking bats and paranoid villagers. Other than that, not much. Mike Mayo said it best with: "Travelers find increasingly silly reasons to visit Dracula's Castle". Perhaps it's not a technically true statement about the characters themselves but it is perhaps more reflective in the writing. The film is a contrived one that still manages to please and really, when one hears the title "SCARS OF DRACULA", it's safe to assume they're not expecting a masterpiece. So we get what we pay for.

The film has a very disturbing beginning. Villagers, finally having enough of their neighbor Count Dracula and his tendency to kill women in the village, decide to take matters into their own hands. They burn his castle, destroying much of what he holds dear. Upon the villagers return, they are horrified to find every last woman in the village dead. This is depressingly effective.

Enter Paul, who in a funny scene, ditches the mayor's naked daughter to attend a Birthday party for his brother Simon's fiance Sarah. The mayor's daughter, displeased, tells her father she was attacked by him. He is suddenly on the run and when police discover him at the party, he must flee. Guess where he ends up.....

This inevitably leads Simon and Sarah in search of Paul and their quest eventually leads them to Dracula's Castle. From here on, the movie picks up quite a bit. The final scene where Dracula dies is unforgettable.

                                                   

Dracula's human slave Klove is quite amazingly pathetic to watch as he clings to a picture of Sarah. One can only imagine what goes on with the picture behind closed doors.... He gives the best performace of the picture and must rank among horrors greatest lowly assistants.

Christopher Lee of course, plays Dracula and he's simply a maniac. The supporting actors are ok, but none are really too notable. When all is said and done SCARS OF DRACULA is a fun, if flawed, picture to watch and as we usually say here, the atmosphere is thick and helps us overlook the flaws (such as the constantly mobile crack in the glass frame of Sarah's picture). So if you're like me, and you've seen the Universal Horror films a thousand times, you might want to check out this one. It's like a Universal only in colour, more bloody, violent, and with the occasional female bare ass. Seeing this around the time of watching so many other British horror films of the period has led me to believe that the British were just less uptight of an audience. They seem to throw more contraversial themes and scenes into their movies during the late 60's period. Pop in Scars of Dracula. You could do worse, like DRACULA 2000. But thats another story. THREE STARS OUT OF FIVE.