Billy the Kid Versus Dracula (1966)

Very well executed

Better Late Then Never

Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Despite the ludicrous premise laid out in its title, "Billy the Kid Versus Dracula," of a historical Western gunfighter battling a supernatural, bullet-proof vampire from a Victorian-age gothic horror novel, the film isn't so bad that it's good, and it's not good enough to be other than bad. The filmmakers seem to have taken it seriously, which is often a recipe for such silly screenplays to become unintentionally funny, but the problem is that the film is competently made, despite its silly story and low budget. Yet, preventing the film from being good is that there's nothing intelligent in it, and its relative competence is due largely to it imitating Universal's Dracula series--the wolf's bane, which Universal substituted for garlic from Bram Stoker's novel, gives it away.Director William Beaudine had directed films since 1915, including Mary Pickford vehicles in the mid-1920s, so the technical competence of this B-picture should be expected. The plotting is especially decent, creating most of the drama during the Discovery and Confirmation phases of the Complex Discovery Plot--the usual plot employed for horror films, as outlined by cinema scholar Noël Carroll. And, the runtime is thankfully short for a feature. John Carradine starred as Dracula in Universal's "The House of Frankenstein" (1944) and "The House of Dracula" (1945), so, of course, he's perfectly credible in the role once again this time, and he, at least, seems to have tried to camp it up some. Chuck Courtney also looks the part of Billy the Kid, and the rest of the cast is serviceable, as well. Even the vampire's mesmerizing stare, the fake bats and the stop-substitution appearances for Dracula have been done amusingly worse in films before and after this one. The stereotypical Native Americans, the scenes filmed during the day that are supposed to be set at night, and the bland dialogue are too routine.I did find the scene of Dracula hitching a ride in a horse carriage a bit amusing, as it reminded me of Jonathan Harker's ride to Castle Dracula in Stoker's novel, where fellow passengers warned Harker about the vampire. Instead, the passengers in this film are rightly a bit spooked that they're sharing a carriage with the undead. In addition to the wolf's bane, the film borrows some other parts from other movies. Dracula as an identity thief had been used in "Son of Dracula" (1943) and "The Return of Dracula" (1958). And Dracula being fascinated by an image of a woman is a common trope in Dracula movies which originates from the 1922 "Nosferatu."(Mirror Note: The doctor confirms Dracula's vampirism by revealing his lack of a reflection in a mirror. The through-the-mirror shot shows Betty, whom Dracula is carrying, to seemingly be floating in mid-air.)

Dracula travels to the American West, intent on making a beautiful ranch owner his next victim. Her fiancé, outlaw Billy the Kid, finds out about it and rushes to save her.My biggest question is, would people in the Old West know what a vampire was? Obviously the concept goes back a long time, but did Americans really know about vampires before Bram Stoker? I am not so sure. And yet, they throw the term around like it is common knowledge.That being said, this film seems to have a very low critical reception... unfairly. While not great, it is far from bad and really puts a new spin on the western. Were there many horror westerns before this? I think not, which makes it ground-breaking if nothing else.

Billy the Kid Versus Dracula (1966)*** (out of 4)Billy the Kid (Chuck Courtney) has settled down and is now working on a ranch where he has fallen in love with its owner Elizabeth (Melinda Plowman). Her uncle (John Carradine) shows up to pay her a visit and soon Billy realizes that he's really COunt Dracula.If you go into a movie called BILLY THE KID VERSUS Dracula and take it serious then you really need to take a long, deep look at your life and wonder why you take things so seriously. THis here was obviously meant to be camp and with WIlliam Beaudine behind the camera they managed to get the movie in the can in five days. Who would have thought that all these decades later that the film would still have a nice little following among bad movie lovers?For my money this here is one of the greatest bad movies ever made and it's entertainment value is pretty much off the charts. The only bad movie that comes closer to such entertainment is PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE so these two really are the kings of their sub- genre. What makes this film so entertaining is the fact that everyone is taking it pretty serious. The cast are all extremely serious and they're treating these events as if they were in a serious drama.The one exception is Carradine who appears to know this is pure camp. He's simply wonderful here and you can't help but call this a great comic performance. I mean, look at an early scene where he's in a bar and a girl with her parents have accused him of being a vampire. He says "a vampire" and take a look at his eyes as he says the line. Pure camp. The actor was a very smart man and a terrific actor who took roles like this to take care of his children. It's clear he knew he was making a low-budget horror movie and he's just making it fun.Beaudine actually makes this look like an actual Western and the film comes off as a real production and not just some cheap film. I'd also argue that the entire film is just about as entertaining as something like this could get. The horror elements are all rather silly as is everything else about the film but it has a certain innocent charm that really comes across.

With a title like this movie has, it's obvious that the film's creators had no great pretense--they KNEW they weren't making Shakespeare! However, despite the stupid title and a very low budget, the film isn't quite as bad as it sounds. It really isn't good, but at least the actors and director tried to make a film that is reasonably watchable, as they played it straight throughout--as if they expected people to actually watch and respect a film called BILLY THE KID VERSUS Dracula.John Carradine plays the Count, though it seems that the writer had never seen a vampire movie before, since so much in this film violates popular vampire lore. For example, here Dracula walks around during the daytime, does not sleep in a coffin, his face magically lights up in red when he's hypnotizing people and wolves-bane drives him away--as if he's the wolf-man! And, as far as acting goes, Carradine was the worst of the actors in the film--looking more like the Devil and over-acting throughout. The Dracula he plays in this film is considerably different than the one he more subtly played in HOUSE OF Dracula and HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN. While the cape and top hat and bright red bow might have fit into these two earlier vampire films, here he just looks pretty stupid out West--especially when no one even questioned this flamboyant attire.As for the plot, the old vampire shows up, inexplicably, in the West and meets up with an amazingly civil and law-abiding Billy the Kid. Mr. The Kid is in love with a cute lady but she is also the focus of Dracula's lust. In the end, they battle it out (of course) in a rather limp conclusion--it's one of the most anti-climatic ends in monster history.All in all, this is a bad movie but not the type that you'd enjoy watching (like PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE). It's more the type that just makes your brain hurt due to its ineptness and dull script.