a different castle again, and when he died in the last one it was on a alter in a church turned to powder in london or Buckinghamshire yet this begins hes on an alter in his castle in europe as powder real annoying, same with the village it changes all the time the church for instance i know it was the 60s n 70s but a little continuity would be good
That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange eons even death may die
H.P.LOVECRAFT
SCARS OF DRACULA is a fine addition to Hammer's Dracula series, but it really stands alone from the rest. There is no connection to its predecessor, TASTE THE BLOOD OF DRACULA, and the one that followed, DRACULA A.D.1972, presents a backstory at odds with the 1958 HORROR OF DRACULA. HORROR is clearly set in 1885, yet the "final" battle between Peter Cushing's Van Helsing and Christopher Lee's Dracula that begins A.D. is set 100 years earlier, in 1872. John Elder (actually Anthony Hinds) wrote DRACULA HAS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE, TASTE THE BLOOD OF DRACULA, and SCARS OF DRACULA, seemingly changing the rules as he went along. In RISEN, Dracula survives being staked because the hero, being an atheist, is unable to say a prayer. In TASTE, the vampire simply expires on the altar in a dilapidated church, the weakest ending in the entire series. At least in SCARS, he is destroyed by a bolt of lightning, a novel way for his demise that had never been done before. The later sequels had different sets due to being shot at different studios, but the films always had a polished look and fine actors that made each one pleasant viewing. SCARS is particularly distinguished by a greater emphasis on Lee's Dracula, whose screen time, 14 minutes, was equalled only by his last, THE SATANIC RITES OF DRACULA (at 7 minutes and no dialogue, DRACULA-PRINCE OF DARKNESS allows him the least amount of screen time). For me, the weakest entry was DRACULA A.D.1972, despite the long awaited return of Peter Cushing's Van Helsing. Of the 9 Hammer Draculas, he did 5 (3 with Lee, 2 without), while Lee did 7 (3 with Cushing, 4 straight without him from 1965-1970).
"I take pleasure in great beauty" - James Bond
oh yeah ad 1972 that totally messes the lot up lol as if none of the others counted because they both die in 1872 so all the hammer vamps with lee and cushin didnt happen except for 72,rights,and 7 golden which is 1807 if i remember right, i did find one explanation while i was searching many many sites for an explanation to scars,it does follow hence the same position on the white cloth on the alter as a red dust on the cape but the director just moved it to europe to fit the story, which does sound like a hammer thing to do the biggest difference between films is the castles in prince of darkness and the next one in the first 2 you take the coach to the door under the arch across the bridge over the mote that drac falls thro the ice into but the next its a different castle ontop of a mountain made of rock which you need to climb to get to as if we arnt supposed to notice the difference, i know its a different studio and different sets but a small explanation in the prologue like a landslide or flood or something caused the road to be washed away, but with all the faults i love them great films
That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange eons even death may die
H.P.LOVECRAFT
I love all 9 films, not a bad one in the bunch. The different sets do make each entry stand on its own, even THE LEGEND OF THE 7 GOLDEN VAMPIRES, which I believe was set in 1904, the only one besides HORROR (1885) and A.D. (1872,1972) that gives a specific year (thankfully, Peter Cushing is on hand for proper continuity). Had LEGEND been a success, Hammer would have done another international production, with Van Helsing traveling to India, no doubt another Don Houghton script. Hammer only did four more features following LEGEND: CALL HIM MR.SHATTER (Peter Cushing's last for Hammer), MAN ABOUT THE HOUSE (adaptation of BBC teleseries), TO THE DEVIL A DAUGHTER (Christopher Lee's last for Hammer), and THE LADY VANISHES (flop remake of Hitchcock original).
"I take pleasure in great beauty" - James Bond
This one and Horror of Frankenstein were both 70s reboots having no connection with previous films.
The beginning scene with the bat dripping blood was added by request of the distributor, to allow the film to be also understood as a sequel. But the original intent was of a reboot, and onde closer to the novel, replacing Jonathan with Paul.
"It doesn't matter what Bram Stoker has told you... dead people don't come back from their graves"
I did notice this film doesn't follow the continuity of Taste the Blood of Dracula, but it is so entertaining and satisfying I didn't even care. This movie is one of my favorite vampire films and it is really in a class of it's own.
Death lives in the Vault of Horror!
Scars Of Dracula was suppose to be a reboot of Hammer Dracula but distributors wanted to fund Dracula movies with Christopher Lee in them, so a badly written resurrection scene was conceived which made it feel out of place and instantly makes it clear that this film doesn't fit anywhere. It's like a Never Say Never Again of Hammer Dracula it has the original lead but sits on it's own and not part of any of the Canon of the previous films.
share