Billy the Kid Versus Dracula (1966)

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Disturbing yet enthralling

Did you people see the same film I saw?

Best movie of this year hands down!

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.)

Traveling through the American frontier, Count Dracula arrives in a small frontier town where he poses as an uncle to target a young woman to be his bride, and once the discovery of the switch is made her boyfriend sets off to find the vampire before he is able to make her his bride.This one was entertaining enough to warrant a watch and had some good moments. One of the film's finer qualities is the fact that the main villain works as a threat since Dracula himself is a major plus. With his cadaverous frame creeping about in a black suit and stovepipe hat, outfitted with a black goatee and his hair slicked back with a Satanic look, this one manages to make the figure somewhat of a threat and does fittingly look the part. There's also a really great method of inspiring fear where whenever he is set upon a victim the camera closes in on his face which is then illuminated with a hellish red glow. It also manages to pull off one common vampire theme in one fantastic scene where the vampire's inability to cast a reflection in a mirror is pulled off in a simply spectacular sequence. These all manage to give the central vampire figure some threat, and the slow-dawning revelation about its appearance at the ranch gives off a rather intriguing storyline throughout here. There's also the fact that there are big action scenes in the grandest Western style doesn't hurt this one much either, as the Indian's assault on the fleeing caravan is one of the film's big moments, a brief gunfight in the saloon is quite nice while the finale in the underground mines has some great moments and a really unique method of defeating the count. Along with the film's really nice pacing, this one wasn't all that bad at all but there are still a few problems. The biggest issue is the fact that this one manages to mix the two genres in here, yet there's not a whole lot of either one in here. The Western setting is really only there for the beginning assault on the wagon and the setting at the ranch. This really could've been changed to any point in history with very little done to change the film. The plot is not really interested in Dracula as a vampire either, as he is allowed to do very specific un-vampire activities such as walk about in broad daylight without consequence, can be staked with non-wooden spears and no blood is ever shown from his blood- drinking, leaving it quite hard to really get into without these commitments from either genre mixed in. It is certainly very cheap as well, with a rather bad bat-on-a-wire effect and every time Dracula changes from a bat to a person, the bat flies behind something off-camera and then he steps out. It's quite distracting and really helps to point out how there are no real transformations in the film. This one here wasn't all that bad.Today's Rating/PG: Violence.

This film is a pretty good "why not?" idea. Why wouldn't a vampire or Dracula that's been around for, supposedly, centuries travel to the American Frontier or, as we tend to call it today, the Wild West? Really, if Dracula has been around for centuries then it would be possible. Heck, why not? Why didn't they call Carradine Dracula in the film? Well there were many vampires in myth history that and not just Dracula - all the settlers knew was vampires were suppose to exist and may have never herd of Dracula during the American Frontier. Buy them not calling him Dracula in the film it made the film a bit more realistic in my opinion. And the tile of the film says Dracula for drawing power - makes sense to me.If you liked this film then check out the companion film Jesse James Meets Frankenstein's Daughter (1966) also starring John Carradine. Makes for a fun double feature.7/10

3 is underrating this movie. It is one of the scariest movies of all time. If you like really scary movie you need to see this movie. This movie is a Dracula sequel. And it is must see. This is awesome movie. There should be more horror movies in the old west. John Carradine was a great actor. Chunk Courtney was a great actor. This is scarier then Dracula (1931) and that is not easy to do. Dracula (1931) is very scary. This is one of the scarier movies of all time. This is not a 3 it is a 10. There are not to many movie this scary made any more. There are few but not many. This is scarier then The Exorcist. This a great horror movie. It is an underrated classic. This movie is a must see. This a great movie.