Watch it at Amazon
5 out of 5 people found the following review useful: The Man in Black Is Back in Town, 5 August 2005 Author: domino1003 from East Texas, USA
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
"Scream Blacula Scream" is actually better than the original. Of course, that may have a lot to do with Pam Grier.Grier plays Lisa, who had just been given the title of head of a voodoo cult. However, Willis (Richard Lawson), the son of the recently deceased voodoo queen, is not pleased at all with the group's choice. And of course, when you're mad, you have a burning desire to get even.Ragman (Bernie Hamilton), who is also mad about how he was treated, gives Willis a helping hand by giving him bones that will help him in his revenge quest. That night, Willis does a voodoo chant with the bones (And during which Lisa sees something rise through fire in a vision) and up comes Blacula (William Marshall), who is none too pleased with being brought back to life (or death, or whatever). And he shows his displeasure by giving Willis an undead hickey.Willis, who is now in undead chic, wants to attend a party. However, Blacula goes instead. There he meets Lisa, who feels that they had met before (In a way she has, seeing him rise from the flames during his resurrection). Soon, mysterious deaths occur and Sheriff Dunlop (Michael Conrad) believes that Lisa's cult may have something to do with it. Lisa's boyfriend Justin (Don Mitchell) believes otherwise.Lisa later discovers Blacula's secret and he wants her to help him: her voodoo know-how can drive out the evil spirit that's within him.Marshall and Grier work pretty well together, and I think that is why this film is slightly better than the first one. Too bad this was pretty much the end of the Blacula films. By the late 1970's, the era was pretty much dead, and films made during this period are regarded as stereotypical or racist.However, despite some faults, this is still a pretty good film to have in your collection.
5 out of 5 people found the following review useful: VERY UNDERRATED EXCELLENT FOLLOW-UP, 14 February 2004 Author: (mcastle70@aol.com) from Sacramento, CA
It seems like this clever sequel has been rather commonly dismissed as inferior over the years. Well, I just watched the film for the very first time with the new DVD release. What a surprise! It is every bit as good as Blacula, very atmospheric, some nice comic camp balanced with the horror...very refreshing! This film is highly superior to any of the non gothic latter day Hammer vampire films and among the best of AIP's later output. I would go to say, that those who dismiss "Scream, Blacula, Scream", don't really get, nor really care for this particular genre, from this particular period. If you like Vampire films, particularly of this era, and more, enjoyed "Blacula", by all means SEE THIS FILM ON THE NEW DVD! Nice title sequence.
5 out of 5 people found the following review useful: A guilty pleasure, 7 May 2003 Author: dctrevil
I thoroughly disagree with a previous reviewer. This movie is a lot of fun! Anyone who loves Pam Grier as much as I do must see it, even as she is definitely not the "action hero" here. She looks particularly sexy in a sweaty ceremony scene. Unbelievable dialogue highlights this film; like when Blacula makes a new convert and the guy realizes he has no reflection in the mirror and says, "Hey man, I don't mind bein' a vampire and all that sh**, but a man has got to see his face!" I was halfway through this movie before remembering William Marshall (Blacula) from Pee Wee's Playhouse as the Cartoon King ("Let the cartoon...BEGIN!") Anyway, if you've seen this film's title and you're familiar with Pam's early work, you know what you're in for. Have fun with it!
5 out of 5 people found the following review useful: IS NOT a waste of time ...., 3 May 2003 Author: webcrawler from New York, New York
On the contrary. Scream Blacula is the best of the two Blacula films. It has two of the scariest scenes in horror film history and some of the most ironic and funniest. William Marshall is an excellent actor and his regal portrayal of the cursed black prince. It was quite interesting to see Pam Grier play against type (at the time, at least) as a vulnerable female -- who happened to be a voodoo priestess. I was a kid when I saw this for the first time and the scene where William Marshall pounces on this unsuspecting fella on the stairwell still scares the hell out of me. I have often wondered why no one has done a remake of this film series, with the resurgence of black film making.I would recommend this film and it's predecessor (Blacula) very highly.
4 out of 4 people found the following review useful: Quality Entertainment..., 21 January 2004 Author: kent-like-what from New Haven, CT
For fans of the 50s-70s horror genre, this has got to be one of the better efforts. It has all the key ingrediants: very good lead (Marshall is obviously skilled), a beautiful girl (Pam Grier looks stunning in S,B,S), bad special effects (check out the vampire house late in the movie, woah), a decent plot, a spooky overall feel and lots of early 70s campiness (Big Willis is a good comic foil throughout and provides some memorable one liners, e.g. "a man has GOT to see his face"). Although it drags in some places early, once it picks up, it really is very entertaining. 8/10.
4 out of 4 people found the following review useful: The movie that got me out of the blues!, 14 October 2002 Author: Tilly Gokbudak from Roanoke, Va.
As a film student at a university I will not identify, I must say that in spite of all its obvious limitations, I loved this film! In fact, I think it is equal if not better than the original "Blacula.' It is disappointing to me that many liberals (well, I am a moderate one myself) see these films as being politically incorrect stereotypes. I would argue that these were African-Americans making their own films and that they effectively broke or modified the stereotypes by taking them to extremes their own way. I think William Marshall is great in this film. He almost makes a better vampire than Bela Lugosi, but I don't know if I can put him alongside the great Max Shrek ("Nosferatu"). I was battling a case of the blues when I saw this,now happy days are here once again! Isn't that what movies are all about anyway? But, I do want to add one thing. Obviously, it is not an exceptional work of art. I gave it a 7 out of 10, but I did really, really enjoy this one!
5 out of 6 people found the following review useful: Blacula 2, 4 August 2003 Author: kita117 (kita117@hotmail.com) from Maryland
This was a great movie. I think it was scarier than the original Blacula. William Marshall (with his deep voice) is more demanding in this sequel. The movie is funny at times also. I saw William Marshall at a horror convention about four years ago. He looked older, but it looked like he could have still played the great parts that he played within the Blacula series. This movie impressed me soooo much that I wish they would make another sequel. My rating of this movie is 4 stars out of 5 stars. I wonder is this movie on DVD yet.
3 out of 3 people found the following review useful: A sequel worthy of the original..., 2 June 2002 Author: poe426 from USA
The members of the Count Dracula Society were on to something when they voted BLACULA the scariest (theatrical) film of 1972 (THE NIGHT STALKER, scripted by Richard Matheson, came creeping across tv screens the same year, and rivaled BLACULA for outright fright). SCREAM,BLACULA,SCREAM! proved a worthy follow-up. The voodoo angle was a logical next step, and, for a kid whose preference was for fright films, it did not disappoint. And it STILL doesn't: I caught this one on a cable channel not too long ago, and I was surprised at how creepy it still is, after all these years. Pam Grier's character here is more sympathetic than the vast majority of the parts she's had over the years, and she is more than capable in the role. William Marshall is as majestic as ever. The direction is even better than in the original. All told, a sequel worth seeing.
2 out of 2 people found the following review useful: The return of the Prince of Darkness, 17 February 2003 Author: IrockGswift (IrockGswift@aol.com) from east orange, new jersey
This movie is to me better than the first because it has more spookier settings. Like when Elaine and Louis went to pick up Willis for a party. The mansion they (Elaine and Louis) went in seem deserted and dark. As evil was only seconds or minutes away. The way Blacula came out and attacked Louis was even creepier. Then the vampire version of Willis went after Elaine, which reminds me of an old slasher movie where the killer has trapped the woman in the house. This movie show Blacula as a controlling vampire with the only desire is to cure himself. The difference between this movie and the first is that in the first movie Blacula wanted to reunite with his bride. The second is he want to get rid of the vampire curse. Between the first and the second movie Blacula wanted to rest in peace until a voodoo fanatic resurrected him. What else is there for Blacula to do.
1 out of 1 people found the following review useful: Decent follow-up to a classic, 28 October 2008 Author: slayrrr666 (slayrrr666@yahoo.com) from Los Angeles, Ca
"Scream, Blacula, Scream" is a remarkably decent sequel to a great original.**SPOILERS**After the death of his mother, gang-member Willis, (Richard Lawson) is voted out and swears revenge on the newly-voted leader, Lisa, (Pam Grier) a voodoo priestess. Using voodoo himself, he resurrects Mamuwalde, (William Marshall) the vampire known as Blacula, to do his bidding, but comes under his vampiric spell instead. As he starts satisfying his blood-lust with the members of the gang, he gets wind of Lisa's powers and longs to rid himself of his curse. When her policeman boyfriend Justin, (Don Mitchell) is brought in due to all the bodies, he believes that Willis is behind it all due to his grudge against the group. When the real culprit is revealed behind the murders, the police race to stop him before he can put his nefarious plans into motion.The Good News: As a sequel to a good movie, this one features some really great moments. The film's best quality is that it really raises the bar by showcasing a vampire who is struggling with his own inner blood-lust. This humanizes the main vampire character a bit, who prior to this had most vampires relished their monstrous existence and sought for nothing more than to become the most fearsome nightmare in the land, by instead showing the lengths he is willing to take to get rid of his vampiric side. We also see an interesting new evolution in the vampire personality dynamic. Here, there seems to be a noticeable distinction to be made from the Manuwalde character and that of the Blacula character. Firstly, there is the obvious physical difference. Blacula has shadowy eyes, stark cheekbones, a frizzed out widow's peak and some wild hair-patches smeared across his face. And of course he has the fangs and the all-night-martini eyes. Even the Manuwalde persona is affecting and interesting. He's calm, cultured and seems amicable enough to want to genuinely mingle with modern society. This isn't really a guy who is trying to cover up for his more dark nature, but rather is one who is warring with himself, striving to overpower his own sinister urges. Key to this success is actor William Marshall. Marshall plays the potentially ludicrous role with such conviction and sincerity that he is a real joy to watch Blacula in his scenes. Marshall is one of the few screen vampires to elicit genuine pathos and scares in his performance and is a testament to his ability, and comes across as being so utterly convincing and complete. Lot of scenes stick out, including a vampire woman rising from her coffin as an unsuspecting character watches in shock, highlighted by a raging thunderstorm that illuminates the set sporadically, Blacula's and Willis' vampiric assault on two intruders while one screams at the top of their lungs, and a quite ingenious attack on a woman who can't see him creeping up as there is no reflection in the mirror, and the climatic vampires and police fiasco set in a dark mansion is a highlight. This also includes some genuinely funny ones, for instance, where one character throws a fit when he finds that he can no longer see his reflection in a mirror. This one really has a lot to like about it.The Bad News: As in the first one, there isn't a lot that doesn't work. The gore here is typical vampire fare, as we get the expected bloody bites on the necks of the victims but that's pretty much it. Although minimal, the bite effects aren't really that good. The blood is way too thick and bright to be convincing, and very often, it's obvious that no contact is made between the fangs and neck, a far cry from the first where the bite marks always looked authentic. This, thankfully, puts a grateful end to the old tradition of vampires turning into bats. There is now a tradition that has evolved to the point that vampires now transform into were-bats, and this is partly to credit for that. This is a thankful element that has been dropped and is the source of a lot of unintentional humor in the genre. For starters, they can't fly, they're not very fast, and they have the directional acumen of a moth on crack. There's a really hysterical scene in here that proves this where Blacula transforms into a bat and we can see him fluttering side by side with cars and buses on a busy metropolitan highway. Realizing that there plenty of other ways of making more progress down the street than the way he is, Blacula decides to fore-go his embarrassing flying foolishness and turns back into a human. This goofy scene alone proves that those scenes are no longer needed in vampire films. The worst problem is that the film has no clear-cut ending. It simply ends, without much fanfare or much of anything being resolved. It's quite a disappointment over the great ending that the first one had, and it lowers the film somewhat.The Final Verdict: While there's a few problems, this has enough going for it that it's more of a positive than anything. It's a recommended viewing for fans of the first one, who might find enough to put this one over the first, but it's still a really good entry nonetheless.Today's Rating-R: Language and Violence
Add another review
