Scars of Dracula (1970)

 

It should be clear that the Hammer series of horror is quite exquisite if you appreciate the upgrade from the classical monsters and you can live with some cheese and pretty much the same storyline over and over. Most of the time, you will be quite entertained with cleavage, blood and a stoic Christopher Lee who rules by mere presence alone. 

But this one, in spite of possibly being the goriest, is also the most underwhelming, alas. 

By now, one will have the gist of the tales: Dracula gets resurrected, young ladies die off by bloodloss, something happens and an intrepid young man must save the day and the woman he loves. 

Yep, this ticks pretty much every box. 

But there are a few reasons why this one feels underwhelming. Whereas before, the sets looked positively opulent and grand, here they feel restrictive and most of all rather flimsy and fake. Not to point fingers, but the backdrop to Dracula's ruined castle is so painfully obviously painted on a wall, it really distracts from the rest. 

Not only that, but they splurged a little on a massive vampire bat prop that looks rather atrocious. It really is by far the most unconvincing thing in the film, yet they use and show it almost constantly. You can actually feel the strings move, as it looks like one of those wooden seagulls you can hang on the ceiling in a child's room. I guess most actors here had to stifle their laughter whenever that thing was being used. 

But what feels really off in this one, is Dracula himself. Not knocking Christopher Lee, but this is the film where his character has by far the most lines spoken, yet he feels the least threatening of all. It is really weird, but somehow the makers missed the mark on atmosphere and thrills and went more for gore (even if it is rather subdued). Every other time, Dracula felt like a looming menace. Here, he just is present and doesn't even feel anxiety-inducing. 

And mr Lee's make-up varies between decent and downright shoddy at times. And no overuse of stage smoke can remedy this.

Can one still enjoy this? Of course. But it is one of the least interesting Dracula-films by Hammer, alas. 

It sure is a silly and goofy way Dracula gets destroyed yet again. Why does the most infamous vampire of all time get taken out like a little twat almost every time?