Greenes
Please don't spend money on this.
Dorathen
Better Late Then Never
WillSushyMedia
This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.
Smoreni Zmaj
Once again it has been shown that the sequences can be better than the original. Although "Scream Blacula Scream" isn't scary at all, unlike most of such movies it isn't stupid. It has a fairly well-written story, with a moderate amount of humor and interesting characters. The acting is good, music is even better, and movie keeps your attention from start to finish. It's not effective as horror, but it's quite decent low-budget movie worth watching.6/10
JohnHowardReid
Standard cheapo horror fare with innocents wandering around by themselves in horror-infested old mansions, this entry was obviously filmed in haste on a very limited budget. Admittedly, some of the make- up and horror effects are genuinely terrifying, but often these artifices look both cheap and obvious. On the other hand, Marshall makes an imposing Blacula, and some of the women are rather attractive. The director does what he can with the rather slight and trite script which serves mainly as an excuse to hang the threads on. However, one of the plot's ideas - although derived from Stephen King's "Salem's Lot", does have a suspensefully original twist. The film's editor has obviously spent a lot of time trying to liven things up. And the music score goes all out too!
MARIO GAUCI
The revived Prince Mamuwalde yearns to be cured of his bloodsucking habits and, to this end, seeks the help of a voodoo-practicing young woman. The raison d'etre behind this inferior sequel (directed by the man behind the two "Count Yorga" movies) to a surprisingly successful "Blaxploitation" take on the vampire myth only comes to the fore during the last fifteen minutes of the film; the rest is taken up by standard thrills, even more humdrum detection and, hilariously, copious use of – no pun intended – colorful slang: at one point, 'Blacula' himself is described as "an interesting dude"; met by a "What's happenin'?" greeting when he overhears the intentions of one of his newly-fanged acolytes to go against his direct orders – who also pleads with his master to tell him if he looks good now that he can no longer cast a reflection in the mirror!; and dismissed as an alcoholic hallucination by an inebriated partygoer with a cry of "Shiiiiiit!" As intimated earlier, the pacing is a bit off for most of the film's running time and, while William Marshall is as commanding in his role as the first time round, the welcome appearances of Pam Grier (as Blacula's would-be savior) and an unrecognizable Bernie Hamilton (as a tramp whose actions set the narrative in motion) do not help matters much.
mrbill-23
I just bought "Scream, Blacula, Scream" from '73 at Wal-Mart for $5.00 dollars. I LIKE IT! I already bought the original Blacula several years ago but, I had never seen the sequel until today. I thought it was done rather well. I fully enjoyed the film. William Marshall is VERY convincing as a scary vampire who is evil as sin. In a way, two films of this nature is enough for William Marshall; no need to drag-it-out and over-stay your welcome. I feel two movies was enough. In considering that the film is that of the early 70s with little special effect abilities, I still say it was done well enough for any horror fan to admire. I am STOKED that I bought this DVD.. Prince Mamuwalde / Count Blacula is kool... He's a strange, scary dude... Cheers....MR.BILL, RaleighNOTE:I do, however, think that the ending scene in the original film was more satisfying than that of the sequel...
