Scars of Dracula [DVD] [1970]

This review is for the Blu-Ray edition of 'Scars of Dracula' released by Shout! Factory in 2019.First off, I'd like to point out that my rating is for the release, not the plot of the movie.This movie is rated 'R'. There is minor nudity and no foul language. Today this movie would likely be rated 'PG-13'.*****NOTE***** For those new to this movie, this is an almost 50 year old movie that was produced in 1970. It was a lower budget movie, even for it's time. If you are not a fan of these types of movies, don't expect big budget production values and special effects.TIMELINE/CONTINUITY: 'Scars of Dracula' is the 6th Hammer Horror Dracula movie (if you include 'Brides of Dracula' in which Dracula does not appear). It is Christopher Lee's 5th appearance as Dracula. He would appear in 7 altogether. This movie is supposed to continue the continuity of the other Dracula movies from Hammer but does not. It was not known whether or not Lee would play the role of Dracula. Therefore, the series was planned to be rebooted. When Lee signed on, Hammer did what they could to tie the movie to the previous movies. The continuity is all messed up. Dracula is resurrected nowhere near where he died in the previous movie. His assistant, Klove, is not the same character as in 'Dracula: Prince of Darkness'. Make of it, what you will.BLU-RAY: I think the picture is excellent. The colors are bright and I see virtually no flaws in the print. I would expect that anybody purchasing this release for the picture will be quite happy with this version. You can watch the movie in either 1.66:1 or 1.85:1 aspect ratios.EXTRA'S:-The inside cover of the Blu-Ray case features a production still.-Audio Commentary with film historian Constantine Nasr: The packaging claims that historian Ted Newsom is part of the commentary but he is not involved in the commentary. This mistake was probably made because these two do many commentaries together. Nasr, as always, focuses on the original script. Since he is alone, he does this considerably more in this commentary. He reads it throughout. As he reads the script, he points out all the changes. This sort of thing can be useful in understanding why some parts of movies don't seem to make sense. Often there have been changes to the script that make certain scenes or dialogue seem odd or out of place. Nasr brings in a music expert to comment on the music for about 5 minutes.-Audio Commentary with Christopher Lee, director, Roy Ward Baker and film historian Marcus Hearn: Christopher Lee says that Michael Ripper was 86 at the time of this commentary. That would place the date in which this commentary was recorded to be sometime in 1999 or 20 years before the release of the edition being reviewed. This commentary focuses heavily on stories about Hammer Film Productions and the people that worked for the company. Lee likes to go off on tangents and tells a lot of stories. Lee dominates but Baker contributes too. In general, Lee is very negative about this movie. Lee says at the end of the audio commentary that he believes this to be the first time he ever watched this movie. His negativity is prevalent throughout the commentary. Baker, who also didn't like the movie, is actually more positive in his commentary. Marcus Hearn basically asks questions and provides some info when Lee and Baker have trouble recalling certain tidbits. Whenever the commentary goes silent for a short while, Hearn jumps in and asks a question. It's my opinion that Lee is better in interviews than he is at commentaries.-'Blood Rites: Inside Scars of Dracula' featurette: This is a new 18 minute documentary on 'Scars of Dracula'. Jenny Hanley, who plays Sarah, is interviewed as well as several film historians. She says Lee was overly serious and wasn't very fun to be around. Hanley displays the cross she used in the movie. It belonged to her and she was asked to bring it to the set.-Theatrical Trailer-Still Gallery-Subtitles*****WARNING - LOTS OF SPOILERS BELOW THIS POINT*****PLOT/SUMMARY: Dracula is resurrected in his coffin when a vampire bat drips blood onto his ashes. Dracula immediately gets to work killing a young girl. The villagers storm his castle and light it on fire to no avail. Dracula's assistant, Klove, is at the castle when the villagers attack and he tells them it's useless to burn the castle because the flames won't reach Dracula. Dracula has placed his coffin an a room with no entrance, other than a window, high up in the castle. When the villagers go back to town, they discover that all the village women have been slaughtered in the local church, which they were using as a sanctuary until the men got back, by vampire bats.Paul Carlson is a bit of a playboy. He is caught sleeping with the burgomeister's daughter but takes off just in time. Paul is then forced to flee a party being held for his sister, Sarah, but not before he gives her a framed picture. Unfortunately, the glass cover is cracked so he takes the picture back to repair it. Paul's brother, Simon, was also at the party. He has fallen in love with Sarah. Paul jumps out of a window into a driverless coach and the horses, spooked, take off. He ends up in a small village. A serving girl lets him in the establishment she works at but the barkeep kicks Paul out. Paul then comes across a carriage in the woods after the carriage he arrived in seemingly took off on it's own. He enters and is immediately brought to Dracula's castle. Once inside the castle, he meets Tania. Dracula enters and orders Klove to prepare a room for Paul. While Paul is in his room, Tania enters and asks Paul to help her escape the castle. A short while later, just when Tania reveals her fangs and is about to bite Paul, Dracula enters and savagely stabs her to death with a knife. He locks Paul in his room. Paul notices a window below his bedroom window. He ties bed sheets together to create a makeshift rope and climbs down. Once in the lower room, Klove cuts his makeshift rope and steals Paul's possessions, including his picture frame. Inside the room he has entered, Paul discovers Dracula's coffin. There is no other entrance into the room. Paul is trapped.Simon and Sarah, worried about Paul's disappearance, head out to look for him. They come to the small village which Paul previously visited. The barkeep and other villager are not willing to help but the serving girl tells them that Paul went to the castle. The two head to the castle where they meet Dracula. Dracula takes Sarah to a private bedroom for her to rest. Shortly, Klove discovers that Sarah is the girl in the picture frame. He has fallen in love with the picture and refuses to help Dracula kill Sarah. Sarah has a crucifix around her neck and orders Klove to remove it. Klove refuses. While Dracula is sleeping, he helps Sarah and Simon to escape.Sarah and Simon head back to the village and ask for help. Nobody except the local priest is willing to help. Together, they go to the church and leave Sarah there. The priest tells Simon how to defeat Dracula. The serving girl, disgusted with the village men because they refuse to help, quits and leaves. Unfortunately, shortly thereafter, she meets her demise. While traveling to the castle, the priest weakens. Simon sends him back to the church to protect Sarah. Back at the church, the priest is attacked by a vampire bat and Sarah gets away. She heads back to the castle.Simon gets to the castle and heads for Dracula's chambers. He has a stake ready but Dracula hypnotizes him even though his eyes are closed. Once it's nightfall, Dracula goes after Sarah. Simon revives and finds Paul hanging from a meat hook on the wall. He climbs out of the window and goes to look for Dracula. Meanwhile, Sarah has had her crucifix removed by a vampire bat. Outside on the castle parapet, Klove goes after Dracula. Klove is tossed to his death. Simon picks up a metal spike and impales Dracula with it. It has no effect. Dracula removes the spike and attempts to throw it at Paul but a lightning bolt strikes the spike and incinerates Dracula.PRODUCTION: This movie was released in 1970 and was directed by Roy Ward Baker.-The production values in this movie were hampered due to Hammer losing it's distribution agreement with American production companies. Ultimately it was distributed by the British EMI. EMI would merge with MGM shortly thereafter.-This was the first Hammer film to receive an 'R' rating.-James Bernard was Hammer's most famous composer and he did the score on this movie. It is excellent as usual.-Roy Ward Baker's favorite scene and really the only scene that he likes in the movie, is the one where Dracula climbs from his window to the one above. This scene is today considered the most notable thing about this movie.-Michael Ripper makes his usual appearance, in a Hammer film, as the barkeeper. Ripper appeared in 33 films for Hammer. This would be his final Hammer Horror movie. He would appear in another non-horror movie for Hammer.-Patrick Troughton took part in this movie because he didn't want to be typecast as Dr. Who. He had just finished his 3 year run as the Doctor when he took the part as the vile Klove.-The opening scene of Dracula being revived was filmed at the end of the production. It was not in the original script and it looks tacked on.-The voice of Sarah is dubbed. This sort of thing was quite normal for Hammer Film Productions. They very often dubbed the voices of their actresses.-Other than the opening resuscitation scene, Dracula doesn't appear in the movie until 30 minutes have passed.-There was an entire scene that was excised from the movie. This involved Dracula drinking blood from the dead corpse of Tania. WHAT OTHER HAMMER HORROR MOVIES DID ROY WARD BAKER DIRECT?:Roy Ward Baker says that this is the only true horror film that he directed for Hammer. He says that all of his other movies were more of the science fiction genre or weren't true horror. I agree to an extent. Baker says in the commentary that when asked to direct this movie, he had only seen the first Dracula movie that Hammer had made, 'Horror of Dracula (U.S. title)'. He then watched the others. Here is a list of the movies that Roy Ward Baker directed for Hammer:Quatermass & The Pit (1967) - Pure science fiction/fantasyThe Anniversary (1968) - A comedy/dramaMoon Zero Two (1969) - Pure science fictionThe Vampire Lovers (1970) - Vampire stories are normally horror movies. This one doesn't really feel like a horror movie. It's more of a 'femme fatale' movie.Dr. Jekyll & Sister Hyde (1971) - Dr. Jekyll movies are hybrid sci-fi/horror movies.The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires (1974)- A minor appearance for Dracula in this martial arts/horror hybrid.Baker made some horror movies for other production companies. Among these are:Asylum (1972)The Vault of Horror (1973)And Now the Screaming Starts! (1973)The Monster Club (1981)In addition, Baker directed 'A Night to Remember' (1958)COMMENTS: WHAT I LIKE:-'Scars of Dracula' doesn't follow the normal rules of horror movies from the time period of which it was made. Initially, the audience is led to believe that Paul is the protagonist even if he is a flawed character.-Paul's shocking death. Seeing Paul hanging on a meat hook is jarring when you see it. Up until that point, the movie keeps you guessing as to whether or not he is alive.-The movie takes full advantage of the ratings system just implemented by including scenes outside the norm up until that point. You see all the women in the village brutally slaughtered, inside a church no less! You then see a priest murdered inside the church.-The interior of Dracula's castle looks pretty good. Despite the low budget, to me, the interior sets look just about as good as any of the higher budget movies.-Probably due to Christopher Lee's incessant complaining about the story diverging from the original by Bram Stoker, Hammer based some lines and scenes from the book. They also made Dracula more in character of the original. Overall, I think his character is an improvement from some of the previous movies.-The most memorable scene of the movie was Dracula scaling the wall. Baker felt this was his big contribution to the Dracula series. This scene was taken directly from the novel. WHAT I DON'T LIKE:- I don't like Dracula's appearance in this movie. Dracula just doesn't look right. He looks like he has too much make-up on. I know he is supposed to look 'pasty' white but he just doesn't look good. He looks almost like he is a tired old man even though Lee was only 48 at the time of the movie.- The paintings used to depict the exterior of the castle look cheap. The exteriors of the castle just don't seem to match the interiors. In addition, the view from the bedroom window, looking down the side of the castle to Dracula's chambers, changes.- I think the bats are overused. It's not as if they look good. The usage of these bats (probably just the same bat) puts an emphasis on the low budget nature of this movie.-I think using footage from the previous movie, 'Taste the Blood of Dracula', of Dracula disintegrating but shown in reverse was a bad idea. That scene, combined with the bat dripping blood on Dracula, just does not look good. How does Dracula control these bats even though he is dead?- The castle doesn't have the look of being ruined after the fire. What doesn't help matters is that the castle is made mostly of stone and it can't really burn. Nevertheless, Dracula complains about the destruction. Perhaps the budget didn't allow for the destruction and the viewer is supposed to use his/her imagination.- For once, I agree with Christopher Lee about Dracula's behavior. It seems out of character for him to use a knife to butcher a young girl. It also seems out of character for him to whip Klove.- The plaque on Dracula's coffin looked way too new.- New powers that are not explained before they suddenly show up. I believe this sort of thing is called 'Deus Ex Machina'. Dracula is asleep during the daytime yet he manages to hypnotize Paul with closed eyes.- The ending. Dracula seems to have some incredibly bad luck. Lightning destroying Dracula? We are routinely told that Dracula as well as vampires are immortal, yet every Dracula movie finds a new way for Dracula to be killed. CHRISTOPHER LEE AND DRACULA: It is well known that Christopher Lee played Dracula seven times for Hammer Horror. In addition he played Dracula a few other times either as a spoof or for a Spanish version of Dracula. Ever since his first appearance, Lee had to be convinced to play the role in each succeeding movie. His main complaint was that the sequels were not in the spirit of the original story as written by Bram Stoker. He famously claims that in the second movie, 'Dracula: Prince of Darkness', that he refused to speak any lines. This is probably not true. The writer, Jimmy Sangster, says he did not write any lines for Dracula. Lee wanted Dracula's lines to come from the book. This is probably what led him to play the role of Dracula for Jess Franco's version. Lee claims that he agreed to the role in his last three or four Dracula movies because he didn't want to be responsible for putting a whole crew of people out of work. Lee also complains about modern movies having too much blood and dislikes 'girly' scenes. He believes that 'less is more' and prefers to leave things to the imagination. I can only partially agree with him. You might as well read a book if you really want to leave things to the imagination. I've listened to Lee in countless interviews. While he makes for a good interview, I find his never ending complaining about Dracula to be depressing. WHAT ARE THE "SCARS" OF DRACULA?: This is not really clear. It can refer to psychological scars as well as physical scars. Klove has some terrible scars but it's uncertain if they helped inspire movie's title. The 'Scars' can refer to Dracula having been psychologically scarred after his castle was torched. Another possible inspiration might be the psychological scars of the surviving villagers after all the women of the village were murdered in the church. I guess it's up to the viewer to decide. OTHER COMMENTS:-This movie is often mistakenly called 'The Scars of Dracula' with 'The' added in.-In the original script, Paul was the brother of Sarah, not the brother of Simon. This would explain the sort of strange love triangle that doesn't really develop.-When Paul jumps out of the window at the party, he tears a large whole in the top of the carriage. The films budget shows as it's obvious that the top of the carriage has no damage as it travels through the woods.-Paul seems surprised when Dracula tells him his name. Why? Nobody else knew who Dracula was. This is not explained. Paul suddenly wants to leave the castle. Perhaps this was due to a script change?-The serving girl tells Simon and Sarah that Paul went to the castle. How would she know this? Paul doesn't tell her that he is going there.-Paul is wearing anachronistic red underwear when he jumps out of bed with Tania. Obviously, Hammer skimped on the budget and didn't film alternate scenes where his underwear wasn't showing.-Why are the villagers so secretive about Paul? This doesn't make much sense. Why not just tell Paul's friends that he was there and he left?-Why does Klove stay in such a decrepit room if he has the whole castle to stay in?-I'm nitpicking, but the crack in the glass of the picture frame moves each time we see it.-I'm not quite sure how Simon got his rope back in order to climb back to the bedroom window.-Where was the serving girl going in the middle of the night, on foot, with no village anywhere near the one she left?CONCLUSIONS: This movie has a reputation for being terrible. I do not agree with that reputation. I hate calling movies 'underrated'. That term is overused. I am saying that this movie is better than it's reputation. I don't think it's the worst of the Hammer Dracula movies. In fact, I would place it in the middle of the pack. Sure, the production values were lower due to Hammer losing it's American sponsors. This doesn't take away from the plot. I think the plot is decent and it isn't always obvious how Dracula will be defeated and by whom.This release is very good. You get some nice extra's and the picture is excellent. If you are a Hammer Horror fan then you will probably want this release.RATINGS:Picture: 9/10 or 4 1/2 starsPlot: 6.5/10 or 3 1/2 starsSFX: 5/10 - Dracula's make-up and the bats look terrible. The sets look nice.Extra's: 7/10 or 3 1/2 stars. You get two audio commentaries along with a 'making of' documentary.Overall: 5 stars - I'm rating this based on the release, not the quality of movie plot.WHAT'S NEXT FOR DRACULA? Dracula returns in 'Dracula A.D. 1972'. This movie takes place in it's own timeline. Christopher Lee returns as Dracula in modern day London (modern day in 1972!).

Box is beautiful and the blue ray disc matches. Fast delivery. Perfect picture

This is one of my favorite Dracula movies. Dracula's servant Clove is really creepy and scary. Just watch this movie; you won't be disappointed!

As an ardent fan of Hammer films in general, this purchase was pretty much a no-brainer...I mean Christopher Lee reprising his role as Dracula? Color me there...and even though the film is ultimately flawed, I still had a really good time overall given this was the last time Lee would play Dracula in a Hammer film set within the period of prior films (the following incarnation would be titled `Dracula A.D. 1972', featuring a more contemporary setting). Directed by the renowned Roy Ward Baker (Quatermass and the Pit, The Vampire Lovers, The Monster Club), the film stars, as I mentioned, Christopher Lee (The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers), along with Dennis Waterman (School for Unclaimed Girls), and Jenny Hanley (The Flesh and Blood Show). Also appearing is Patrick Troughton (The Gorgon, The Viking Queen), Michael Gwynn (Jason and the Argonauts), Christopher Matthews (Scream and Scream Again), and perennial English character actor Michael Ripper (X the Unknown, The Plague of the Zombies, The Reptile).The film opens on an ominous miniature...er, I mean an ominous castle, and we see a cape covered with red dust (the immortal remains of Dracula). With a little help from a winged friend, we witness a bit of the old reconstitution, proving once again you can't keep an evil bloodsucker down. The residents of a nearby village soon learn their nightmare begins anew, decide to take matters in their own hands by torching the castle (I wouldn't have thought stone could burn, but hey, what do I know?), despite warnings from the priest who fears that what goes around comes around...and perhaps they should have listened to him as when they return to the village, well, it's not a pretty sight. It's at this point we meet three young people, two brothers in Paul (Matthews), the philanderer type, and Simon (Waterman), the goodie-two shoes type, along with the comely Sara (Hanley), the object of Simon's desires, whereas Paul, well, his desires tend to vary, not being restricted by that whole `monogamy' nonsense. After a series of events (or as I like to call them `the dalliances of Paul'), Paul ends up at the partially charred castle (the renovation seems to be going well), not realizing the nature of the danger he's in until it's too late. Soon afterwards, both Simon and Sara come looking, and their search also leads them to the castle, to which they meet Dracula (Lee) and his less than savory, heavily eye browed (he's got the Abe Vigoda eyebrows) manservant Klove (I actually didn't learn his name until the end, and thus referred to him throughout as Uni-brow, due to the fact his two eyebrows had since merged into one, gigantic hairy entity on his forehead). The Count's hospitality soon turns to bloodthirsty lust, which leads to a climatic, almost biblical ending...As I mentioned, while I did enjoy this film, the overall sense was that it was somewhat lacking and unfocused. The story starts off really strong, but then drops off for about the next 45 minutes or so...but that didn't really bother me much as even a half-baked Hammer film is still a lot of fun. The one thing that did annoy me a little was the introduction of so many characters that really had little to do with story as a whole. I didn't mind them being brought forth, but there was a sense within their presentation that they would be more integral than they actually were...a perfect example is that of the character of Paul, who is the primary focus as the film begins, only to disappear (we actually do see him later on hanging around the castle) about 20 minutes in basically turning into a plot device. In terms of the characters, since there were so many of them packed into this 95-minute film, there wasn't a whole lot of room for development and, as others have mentioned, chemistry was lacking between Simon and Sara. I did find it interesting how much attention was given to Dracula's manservant Uni-Brow aka Klove...talk about being used and abused (his relatively minor indiscretions elicited some very harsh punishments) . His character did have a role within the story, but not one that would warrant the amount of screen time he had...although he was featured in one of my favorite scenes as he found himself in the position of having to clean up one of the Count's `messes'...using a hacksaw, meat cleaver, and other various implements. As far as Lee, his screen presence is definitely menacing and authoritative, and has a comparatively copious amount of dialog compared to his previous cinematic appearances as Dracula...and then there are those red eyes as the bloodlust overtakes the character soon followed by the baring of the bitey fangs. The special effects ranged from so-so (the goofy looking bats) to very effective (Dracula's eyes glowing through his lids as he slept). Some have mentioned the film lacking the `gothic' feel of previous movies, and I would also agree, but while the atmosphere may not have been suitably oppressive, it still worked well for me to create a certain cinematic sense appropriate to the material. Perhaps they didn't have the budget of previous films, but it did feel whatever they did have went towards the overall production, making the most of what they had...and that's one element I've felt generally consistent with Hammer productions is while they may have been restricted in one way or another, there never seemed to be a short supply of effort and heart put forth towards the material, along with a sense of a wanting to entertain audiences...but then that's just my opinion.The widescreen anamorphic (1.85:1) looks sharp and clean, and the Dolby Digital 2.0 audio comes through clearly. With regards to special features, there are plenty, enough to fill two discs, which is why a 2nd DVD is included. On the DVD that contains the films is featured both a UK and US theatrical trailer for the film (the US trailer is actually a combo), poster and still gallery, talent bios, and a commentary track with Christopher Lee, director Roy Ward Baker, moderated by film historian Marcus Hearn. On the 2nd disc is a 57-minute piece titled The Many Faces of Christopher Lee produced in 1995 featuring a reflective Lee in a personal setting talking about his lengthy career and providing all kinds of interesting details. This is interspersed with clips from his films, behind the scenes footage, and still photographs. He does come off as a little pompous at times, but he's certainly earned that right...also included are two music videos (?!) with Lee performing duet with someone named Gary Curtis...actually, the first video, featuring the songs `O Sole Mio/It's Now or Never, is a duet while the 2nd video, featuring a song titled `She'll Fall for Me' has Curtis doing most of the singing and Lee providing dialog within the song rather than singing. Curiously interesting, to be sure...Cookieman108

HI BIG DRACULA FAN HAMMER FILMS. THANKS PAUL.....

Along with Dracula, Prince of Darkness, this is another one of my favorites in the Hammer Films line! Classic Hammer eerie Gothic atmosphere and blood ! Watch late at night alone especially during thunderstorm if can!

One does not look to Hammer horror for an epic of continuity. Often the films are highly derivative of earlier films and one films events will actually contradict their previous entries. But one does look to films like Scars of Dracula for style, atmosphere and (possibly dated) chills. This film is an excellent addition to the Hammer Dracula library. With scene chewing turns from no less than Patrick Troughton (fresh from leaving Doctor Who) and Christopher Lee this film is an essential part of any Hammer Horror library in my opinion. I highly recommend it.

I must say that the bright colour on this Blu Ray really is excellent when you consider that it was made in 1970 ,51 years ago. Indeed some more modern films don't look this good. Of course if you are looking to be really scared this Hammer Horror probably won't do that. However this is a great fun way to spend an hour and a half, with some quite gory bits included. Patrick Troughton plays a great part as Klove ,Dracula's evil side kick and you also see a very young Dennis Waterman and the eye candy is Jenny Hanley whose cleavage is shown a lot ,you even see her naked bottom ! Christopher Lee does what is required but has very few lines to learn ,but he certainly looks very evil and has the blood shot eyes to stare you down. Indeed there are two very violent scenes in the film that take you a bit by surprise. I am a big Hammer fan and this is very good addition to my collection. Recommended.

.el bluray no tiene subtitulos en español ni doblaje y tampoco lo expecifica en la publicidad

"Dracula - Naechte des Entsetzens" ist wieder so ein Film aus Hammer's "Umbruch-Jahren" der selbst von vielen eingefleischten Hammer Fans sehr kritisch gesehen wird. Und so unrecht liegen die Leute da meist nicht. Natuerlich ist dieser Film nichts herausragendes oder besonders tolles, aber obwohl Hammer nun mehr auf Gewalt setzte (setzen musste) blieb man seinen Urspruengen immer treu, behielt den Grundton bei, versackte nie in totalen Trash.Eigentlich ist ja gerade dieser Film einer der ganz zu den Dracula Wurzeln zurueckkehrt, einer, der auf die Bram Stoker Vorlage baut. Man kann sagen: Ein Reboot - nur mit der gleichen Crew vor und hinter der Kamera. Die lose Verbindung der vorangegangen Filme wurde aufgegeben, ohne Erklaerung ist Dracula aus London zurueck in Transsylvanien. Ja, Drehbuchautor Elder schrieb hier eigentlich sowas wie eine Variation von Stokers Story. Der Vampir wird uns vorgestellt, das Dorf leidet unter ihm, keiner ist sicher. Dann wirds erstmal etwas merkwuerdig, es gibt fuer gute 15 minuten Comedy, in der uns die weiteren Protagonisten vorgestellt werden. OK, wirkt ein bisschen so als wusste man nicht wie man mit der simplen Story sonst auf 90 minuten kommen sollte. Aber, immerhin ists halbwegs logisch eingebettet, fuehrt uns in die Story ein. Und dann gehts in Draculas Schloss. Und von da an nutzt Elder viele Ideen aus Stokers Buch, einige die selbst im '58er Film nicht beruecksichtigt wurden. Die Kutsche zum Schloss, Dracula gibt wieder den netten Gastgeber, die Vampirbraut, Herr ueber die Fledermaeuse, ein an Waenden krabbelnder Dracula. Es gibt aufgesetzte Gewalt, ja, aber nichts schlimmes, lediglich eine Szene ist wirklich trashig. Als der Vampir Dracula in einem Wutanfall seine Vampirbraut mit einem Messer absticht - und die dadurch sogar stirbt. Ich dachte Vampire muss man pfaehlen? Auch die Szenen in denen Dracula auf nett macht sind etwas ungluecklich, er wirkt leider wie ein Idiot. Warum? Man versuchte einen Mix aus "normal" und "gruselig", das klappt nicht so. Aber sonst? Die Story? Ja, die ist mickrig und bietet nichts "neues", aber sie hat das was Hammer ausmacht: Atmosphaere und Maerchenhaftigkeit. Der verschwundene Bruder, das verwunschene Schloss, das junge Paar. Ist doch schlicht gesagt einfach schoen! Was man vermisst ist das was man in vielen spaeteren Hammerfilmen vermisst: Einen wuerdigen Gegenspieler. Einen a la Cushing. Da sah man komischerweise keinen Handlungsbedarf, bot genau so einen schwachen Helden wie in "Draculas Rueckkehr" und "Wie schmeckt das Blut". Einen blutarmen Juengling. Michael Gwynn, Hammererfahren als Frankensteins Monster im '58er Film soll zwar fuer Erfahrenheit sorgen, aber auch sein Part ist viel zu klein und er wirkt eher nichtsnutzig. Dafuer hat der Juengling aber hier staendig seine Holde an der Seite, und Jenny Hanley war doch wirklich berueckend schoen. SO stell ich mir eine unschuldige Maid in den Faengen eines Vampirs vor. Kann voll und ganz verstehen warum Klove so auf sie abfaehrt, ich taets auch. In Punkto Sex hielt sich Hammer in allen Dracula Filmen stark zurueck, dafuer waren die Karnstein Filme zustaendig. Und so gibts hier nur entzueckend unschuldiges. Das Kreuz auf Jenny's Busen spielt eine wichtige Rolle, gibt es doch so viel gelegenheit um auf ihren Ausschnitt zu zoomen. Und dann das, was den Film wirklich adelt: James Bernards WUNDERBARE Musik. Manche finden Hammerfilme wurden mit den Jahren immer schwaecher, aber Bernard, der wurde immer besser, finde ich. Seine spaeten Scores sind bezaubernd schoen. Mein Favorit ist zwar das Thema aus "Wie schmeckt das Blut", aber die Musik hier beruehrt mich vielleicht noch mehr. Warum? Als ich so 8, 9 Jahre war, da kamen wir an den Film nicht 'ran. Mein Bruder hatte ihn einmal gesehen, und die Musik mit dem Kassettenrekorder aufgenommen. So kannte ich ueber Jahre nichts anderes als die Anfangs- und Schlussmusik. Und ich fragte mich immer wie toll der Film wohl sein muss (sah ihn dann erst 1990 als er bei RTL gezeigt wurde, zu Ostern). Diese Melodien versetzen mich in solch Nostalgie, das wenn am Ende die Schlussmusik einsetzt ich jedesmal feuchte Augen bekomme. Das ist konservierte Kindheit, dann bin ich wieder neun und fuer einen kurzen Moment habe ich das Gefuehl das es nichts schoeneres gibt. Tja, da sieht man wie befangen einen Nostalgie machen kann. Viele gucken den Film und finden ihn laecherlich und beschissen. Und vielleicht issers auch. Aber fuer mich ist er pure Magie, ein Fenster in die Welt in der ich leben moechte. Koennt mir den jeden Tag angucken.Als Teil der "Hammer Collection" von Studio Canal isser ja nun auch auf Blu Ray enthalten, die Qualitaet ist sehr gut. Bin wirklich froh ueber dieses Set, gut das an diesen Film ausnahmsweise mal nicht die "Mediabook" Fraktion 'rankam. Hier bekommt man 7 Filme fuer das gleiche was 1 oder 2 Mediabooks kosten. Enthalten ist wie auf der DVD nur die deutsche Kinosynchro und nicht die 1990er von RTL erstellte. Die war uebrigens auch sehr gut, liess den Film aber etwas unpassend "neu" erscheinen, aufgrund der damals allseits bekannten Sprecher. Arne Elsholtz (Tom Hanks) z.b. war dabei. Dafuer gibts hier in der Kinosynchro den jungen Tommi Piper (Alf) zu hoeren.

Il faut avoir ce titre dans sa collection….amoureux de Dracula….!!!