Review of Billy the Kid Versus Dracula

There's been plenty of Cowboy Crossovers, but this is one of the oddest titles I ever witness. Hints why I check it out. Billy the Kid Vs Dracula is one of those B-List movies that sounds silly, but could had work if written better, had a bigger production, or had a good director under it. This 73 minutes western movie was far from that with its low budget rubber bats on wires, no fangs, and others. Directed by William Beaudine. It was released theatrically as part of a double bill, along with 1966's Jesse James Meets Frankenstein's Daughter. The film revolves around the eponymous ex-outlaw Billy the Kid (Chuck Courtney) trying to save his girlfriend, Elizabeth Bentley (Melinda Plowman) from Dracula AKA James Underhill (John Carradine) whom impersonating as her uncle. First off, Chuck Courtney as William 'Billy the Kid' Bonney is just odd casting as he has the personality of a toothpick, and woody delivery. None of the traits of real life personality of Billy the Kid are in this movie like his violent nature or rough and tough edge. In fact, the movie tries really hard make Billy the Kid seem like Good ol' boy who follows the rules, than a murdering psychopath, he was in real life. He's so bland, if you take his name out of the film, he can pass as a good role models type Roy Rogers cowboy. His age doesn't help as well, as he looks more like Billy the 40 year old virgin. John Carradine as James Underhill is just as bad in his role, but it's the worst, I ever saw from him. The title says he is Dracula, but it's never mention in the film. He doesn't delivery of dialogue completely lacks any genuine continental bearing or aristocratic flair. There isn't any European accent, so I really doubt, he was really supposed to be Dracula. He look more a dirty old man, than a vampire. At less, he is the main star of this movie, than doing a stupid cameo. He somewhat play the role of Dracula, kinda sinister, but he doesn't seem too much of a threat. The actor is so old & frail, that body doubles had to be used in walking scenes. Isn't vampires supposed to suck blood to be youthful? He looks like he's doing a bad job at that. Lots of inconsistencies in this film as he see Dracula move in bright daylight, while also getting hurt by daylight in other scenes. Then he can staked with non-wooden spears. It's like the filmmakers didn't know anything about vampires. I hate when he does that silly constipated mugging face under red light. I know, it's used, so that he's supposedly using mind control on people, but it's such a repeatable shot that it become a bit funny to watch. It's remind me of the Dramatic Hamster on Youtube. It's gets worst when you find out that his main nemesis isn't actually Billy the Kid, but a bad German accent old woman, Eva Oster (Virginia Christine) who knows Dracula's real identify. Virginia Christine is known for being the Folger's coffee woman. Melinda Plowman is pretty as the girlfriend of Bill the Kid, but she comes across as whiny and annoying. I just wish, she didn't had any lines. The production was hit and miss. It's nice to see the old Corriganville Movie Ranch sets again, but the movie has a lot of bad editing, as scenes seem too jump around. The opening credits look like something out of 1960's Batman TV series with its cartoony effects. Then there is the badly done day for night lighting that makes it hard to see. Then there is the reel intermission break that is a bit odd to see on a modern DVD copy. The action is barely there. Billy only has one gun fight and two fist fights before the inevitable final showdown between the title protagonists. The final fight is anti-climax. I like how Bullets don't affect the Vampire yet when Billy the Kid hurls his empty six-shooter at old Dracula's head. He actually knocks him out. It's such a disappointment. Don't ask about what the bat seem exiting from the cave means, as it's never explain in the film. Who knows maybe it was an attempt to set things up for a sequel that never materialized. The Story, though it may drag at times, is quite alright, but it's nothing special. If you are a western fan, you will notice that it borrows or rip off clichés ideas from famous westerns like 1939's Stagecoach. Sadly, it's not violent enough to be good in the genre of Horror or Westerns. It's a disgrace to both history and literature, but this is a Hollywood film at the time, after all, so don't expect much accuracy in either Bram Stoker's novel or Wild West history. Overall: I'd only recommend it to those with a love for 'so bad, it's good' films.