Scars of Dracula

Scars of Dracula

The Prince of Darkness casts his undead shadow once more over the cursed village of Kleinenberg when his ashes are splashed with bat's blood and Dracula is resurrected. And two innocent victims search for a missing loved one... loved to death by Dracula's mistress. But after they discover his blood-drained corpse in Dracula's castle necropolis, the Vampire Lord's lustful vengeance begins.

A young man, Paul Carlson, is on a trip and spends the night at count Dracula's castle. Needless to say, he is murdered. After some time has passed, the young man's brother Simon comes to ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Scars of Dracula torrent reviews

Amanda N (de) wrote: Don't waste your time. If an introspective, 'woe-is-me' melodrama and a French slapstick comedy had a head-on collision, the wreckage would look just like this. It's all over the place. Sometimes it's about a successful man who's sad because his wife cheats...and then suddenly he's wearing BIG fake teeth. If that's not bad enough, Bai Ling is in it. She has dialog. That never goes well. It's no surprise that this went straight to DVD. Those DVD's probably went straight to the bargain bin.

Chad M (kr) wrote: Started off "interesting" with all the weird cameo's. It was okay by the end and really made yea this about his question about what you would do for money.

Tyryn H (kr) wrote: this is The best. movie ever

Ian M (de) wrote: This film is incredibly well acted and beautiful at time, but look Leo... David Thewlis is well ugly, and I'd make a much better leading man. I KNOW I'm a better kisser! Nice to see his willy though. LOL.

Brandon S (ca) wrote: So bad it's good but still pretty bad horror film that is about a group of pranksters that decide to pick on the teacher with a past. The script is extremely unintentionally funny it's downright ridiculous, makes one think why and where do people come up with the money to make such gabage. Everything aside the film is bad, the acting is bad, there is very little gore, and involves nothing scary what so ever. If you are a conisseur of crap then this is definately your cup of tea.

Scot C (it) wrote: "When someone else says you're a writer, that's when you're a writer."A 35 years younger Jeff Bridges, and he was a good actor even back then. This kind of concept will always work, its an age old one. And i think as an audience we'll always be attracted to characters that want to fulfill their dreams, because we can relate. Jeff Bridges and Alan Arkin are stand outs in this movie, with the great energy they bring to their characters. It's a wonderful film to watch, even though the pacing at times is off. I think this film is underrated, and is a classic in my opinion. And i'm sure in ten years, it will be even more so. Movies like this should be treasured, its one of a kind, and they don't make them like they used to. And let me just mention, that this is classified as a western, but its not. Its just a guy who dreams of being a cowboy, and ends up being a movie star cowboy. Awesome!

Richard D (jp) wrote: The great Soviet director Mikhail Kalatozov was commissioned to make a film celebrating the Cuban revolution. Nobody really liked the results ... Cubans thought it presented a distorted view of Cuba, and the Soviet government was unhappy with the artiness of the completed film ... so it was essentially shelved. Rediscovered decades later, this is an astonishing piece of work. It's not really a great film from a narrative point of view. It tells four stories that are attempts to show the necessity of revolution in Cuba, but while they demonstrate that life could be pretty awful in pre-revolutionary Cuba, they don't really do much to convince the viewer that life would be any better in post-revolutionary Cuba (and the first segment manages to make the night life in pre-revolutionary Cuba look amazing). It's this film's visual inventiveness that makes it a must see. Besides some of the more famous sequences, like the several story drop to poolside and into the pool, the film is just generally an astonishing visual spectacle. Come for the politics, stay for the visuals.

Gimly M (ca) wrote: Accurately surmises my feelings on child rearing.Weird for weird's sake doesn't phase me, in fact it's kind of my wheelhouse. What I do have trouble abiding in Eraserhead is how long Lynch will linger on each part of the film. He stays on each frame longer than seems humanly reasonable. It's like a comedian telling a joke that barely hits the first time, then retelling it three or four more times, then starring at his audience with his eyes and mouth open wide in anticipation. We had it the first time, just move on. I understand it's an intentional stylistic choice, but it doesn't mesh with me at all.

Simon W (ca) wrote: Whilst I did learn some new things about Oswald, this just felt like a big waste of time.