i have my issues with this one

This film was made about the same time as Horror of Frankenstein, Hammer's worst Frankenstein. They must have been going through a bad patch.

"I don't need to fight to prove I'm right. I don't need to be forgiven."

OH it's not that bad

By 1970 when this film was made, three things had happened to horror cinema. The first was Night of the Living Dead and the second was Rosemary's Baby, both films having an unprecedented impact on not just the market by being huge, colossal hits, but in the approach to making them which was oriented towards adult (or at least 17 and over) audiences. Before 1968 or so, horror movies were really made with all ages in mind, as is evidenced by Dracula Has Risen From The Grave which was the first movie ever to be awarded an audience rating (G, general audiences) by the MPAA. But by the time of Taste The Blood Of Dracula (1969) you can already see that Hammer was going for a more graphic and lurid style, partly in response to the demands within the market created by Night of the Living Dead in particular. People wanted to see more flesh ripping and outright gore, flimsy negligees fluttering in the breeze and a castle on a mountain in Mittel Europe didn't cut it anymore.

The third thing that happened to horror cinema is that by 1969 it had become truly international, with efforts from Europe becoming the vogue where exploitation was the rule of the day. At that time most of continental Europe didn't have an "adult film" market for outright pornographic productions, but they had horror movies -- among other genres -- and the distributors & producers slowly upped the ante of "adult" material in the form of explicit gore, nudity and sexual themes that had never been directly addressed before. After seeing something like a Jean Rollin or a Jess Franco sexploitation horror film anything that came before it seemed tame, and the idea wasn't to make "art" but to sell tickets and have theater owners pay rental fees on films. You had to give the audience what was in vogue.

The key phrase is exploitation, and Scars of Dracula is one of Hammer's first exploitation films in response to this shift towards adult oriented cinema. It just happens to be masquerading as a gothic horror thriller; The Vampire Lovers (also 1970), Lust For A Vampire (1971), Twins Of Evil (1972) and especially Vampire Circus (1973) all distilled the exploitation formula down further to where a Dracula character wasn't even important. The vampire movie angle was just a tapestry onto which the parade of breasts, blood, gore, decapitations and other adult themes were woven. The stories become secondary to the thrills & chills being presented, which is one of the reasons why Scars Of Dracula feels "under-written". The story, plotting, and majority of cinematography was secondary to giving the audience such delightful elements as people being chopped up & thrown in acid baths, bodies hanging impaled graphically on giant iron hooks, the deplorable scene where Dracula tortures Klove (torture scenes are a very important element in the Euro genre film formula dating back through the spaghetti western years), graphic bloody killings with Dracula gorily stabbing people rather than using his 1eet vampire skills, etc etc etc.

The traditional concerns of a Hammer gothic became secondary to that formula of exploitation, and it's a testament to the talents of those involved that the resulting films turned out good enough for people to still be watching & discussing thirty eight years later. The sad fact of the matter for Hammer is even this shift towards exploitation ultimately wasn't enough but for a few years they churned out what might considered to be "classy grindhouse fare" like Scars Of Dracula and The Vampire Lovers and kept their franchise together beyond the end of the relevancy of their classic era.

I do agree that Scars of Dracula is one of their weaker Dracula entries, my favorite is actually Dracula Prince Of Darkness, but one thing to keep in mind when considering it is, as someone else mentioned, Christopher Lee actually gets to speak lines in this one that have some substance to them rather than just muttering about being avenged & having the camera stop by his darkened corner in the ruined abbey like Oscar the Grouch. He's also directly involved with the action of the film rather than just an onlooker, a problem I have with Taste The Blood Of Dracula and Dracula AD 1972 in particular (which I would rate as the least of Hammer's Dracula productions without even needing to think about it).

One other aspect of Scars Of Dracula is it's emphasis on cruelty taken to a level that it hadn't been seen before from Hammer. Everyone in the film except the two lovers is mean-spirited, cruel, violent, unlikable, sullen, guilt ridden, incompetent, sadistic and beyond redemption. There's also zero in the way of comic relief unless like me you find the scene where Klove chops up Tanya to be inappropriately hilarious. Hammer's approach usually mixed lighter scenes in with the heavy plot and action, here it's all just literally a horror show, with a de-emphasis on the "picture postcard" cinematography that defined their classic era look. Compare this one with The Brides Of Dracula and other than the music & some of the trick photography you wouldn't even know they were made by the same basic production team. Instead this one actually looks cheap and like it was filmed quickly, where most of their classic material looks so ornate by comparison. I find the approach quite refreshing and like others consider this to be Hammer's last "great" Dracula movie, though they did pull off a couple other good ones too afterwards, especially Vampire Circus.

The only thing I can agree on are the badly executed bats, and some of the other special effects.

I will say James Bernard's score did get on my nerves a little bit here and there, but I guess he had to come up with something different.

I went into "Scars Of Dracula" expecting the movie you pretty much described, but what I found was an enjoyable treat. It was fun.

"Scars Of Dracula" is certainly far from the worst film I've ever seen! I guess I've seen more movies.

[deleted]

[deleted]

I did lose some believability with the fake bats and Dracula struck by lighting and seeing at times it's a stunt double? Dracula's deaths since Prince Of Darkness did come off as a bit humorous where they could've been a splat sound at the end when he's falling.