Negative Positive
Title: Not the best, but the most horiffic of the entire series!
Review: Great movie although I still say "Horror Of Dracula" was the best of them all. This film is the best of the sequels. Only one confusing part of it though. In "Taste The Blood Of Dracula", he is destroyed and rots away into dust at that ruined church. "Scars" begins, presumably, right after that film, yet we see Dracula's remains lying on a stone slab at a castle. How did this happen? Did someone pick up his dust at the church and then sprinkle it in the castle? Maybe it was the bat who comes in to drip blood on the remains? Who knows?In any case, this was a rather good film. Unlike the previous one, Dracula is present for nearly the entire film this time. And, a great demise at the end this time.If you buy any of the Hammer "Dracula" films, stick with this and the previous ones. Stay away from the ones that take place in the 20th century. Not the same.
Is the review positive or negative? 