Vampire in Venice (1988) User Reviews

High priest of putridity, depravity personified, enemy of Christ, adversary of life, abomination of abominations but we can call him Klaus Kinski!

[Coventry · 6/10 · 7 September 2015]

I'm a tremendously massive fan of the works and persona of Klaus Kinski, but apparently I should praise myself lucky that I never had to work with him or maybe even meet with him person. Kinski allegedly was an incredibly arrogant individual and literally an impossible person to interact with professionally. During this particular period – the late 80s – he also was at the heights of his violent temper, which (nearly) ruined all the movies he starred in. Director David Schmoeller made the ironic short film "Please Kill Mr. Kinski", based on the disastrous experience that he had with him during "Crawlspace" in 1986 and even the long-running professional relationship with the acclaimed director Werner Herzog got destroyed in 1987 during the filming of "Cobra Verde". According to the documentaries Herzog and Kinski got into several vicious fights and openly threatened to kill each other. Also this "Nosferatu in Venice" suffered enormously from Kinski's eccentric quirks. He chased away the initially hired director Mario Caiano, he physically assaulted two of the lead actresses and he refused to cut his hair or wear any make-up. And yet, it's a Kinski film and I'd move heaven and earth just to see it!

I liked "Nosferatu in Venice" a lot, but not exactly because it's a good film… I'm much more fond of the whole idea and concept of the film. What a brilliant idea to set a vampire movie in the wonderful city of Venice! And not just any ravenous and mad-as-hell vampire, but a melancholic vampire figure like Nosferatu! That's just fantastic. The story initially follows Prof. Catalano, who's searching for the mysteriously vanished Nosferatu, but at the same time the professor is convinced that he is fed up with his immortal and roaming existence. Deep in the basement of a Venetian family mansion there is a tomb, and the heiress thinks that Nosferatu is buried here. They hold a séance to awaken him, but he resurrects somewhere on a tropical island. Nosferatu promptly travels to Venice, hoping to find love and eternal peace. "Noferatu in Venice" is slow-brooding and talkative, and thus definitely not recommended for the nowadays new generation of horror/vampire movie fanatics that swear by fancy computer-generated effects and monstrous transformations. This movie thrives on macabre atmosphere, moody set-pieces and sober cinematography. The plot is very messy and often doesn't make a lick of sense, and yet it's captivating from start to finish. This is also a very unconventional vampire story. Kinski's Nosferatu doesn't suck the blood from the virgin's necks, but he impales old ladies on fences and tears off the lips of jealous boyfriends. Kinski doesn't have to do a lot apart from demonstrating his naturally sinister charisma. The cast contains another two phenomenal actors, Donald Pleasance and Christopher Plummer, as well as a couple of beautiful actresses, like Barbara De Rossi.

Vampire in Venice? Keep your expectations low...

[howardvause · 4/10 · 6 September 2013]

Nosferatu (dir. F. W. Murnau, 1922) is regarded as a masterpiece. To be honest, I enjoyed Werner Herzog's remake (1979) far more - Klaus Kinski's performance in the title role was perfect; repellent and charismatic in equal measure. So I've been looking forward to seeing this hard-to-get-hold-of "sequel" for years.

Oh dear, what a disappointment. This film is a confused mess.

If "Vampire in Venice" were less conventional, it could be Art-house or Surrealist Cinema. And then its fogginess might be to its advantage. But... it just isn't.

Whereas its' predecessors were directed with a spark of genius, "Vampire in Venice" had a history of directorial dithering - and boy does it show. Despite some excellent cinematography, great sets and a (potentially) strong cast, the film is so weakly directed that it falls apart almost immediately. The cast is wasted. The plot is incongruous. The characters are under-developed and their motivations are anyones' guess. The whole is deeply unsatisfying. Of course, Barabara De Rossi is utterly gorgeous, Plummer has some gravitas and Kinski is OK, but without a firm hand at the rudder, we are on a gondola to nowhere.

Only the film's few saving graces allowed me to watch to the end. One for the curious only, I fear.

"High priest of putridity." An absolute mess of a film.

[poolandrews · 5/10 · 10 June 2006]

Nosferatu a Venezia, or Vampire in Venice as it's more commonly known as to English speaking audiences, starts with the arrival of Professor Paris Catalano (Christopher Plummer) in the beautiful European city of Venice. Professor Catalano has dedicated his whole life to the study of Nosferatu (do you think that pays well?) who disappeared in Venice during 1786, he has received a letter from Helietta Canins (Barbara De Rossi) who claims that a coffin in her basement contains the body of Nosferatu (Klaus Kinski). Catalano checks it out but disagrees, to try & prove her point (I think) Helietta organises a séance & hires a medium (Clara Colosimo) to try & contact Nosferatu. It turns out Calatano was right & Nosferatu isn't in Helietta's basement but the séance does raise Nosferatu from his 200 year sleep & after consulting with a gypsy (!) Nosferatu heads off in search of those who summoned him. Oh, & to add to the excitement he also has a few nice boat rides down various Venice canal's...

This Italian production was written, produced & in part directed by Augusto Caminito & is a loose sequel to Werner Herzog's Nosferatu the Vampyr (1979) although the actual connection with that film is nothing more than Kinski reprising his role as Nosferatu & even then he looks completely different in each film. The script by Caminito is a bit on the dull side, takes itself very seriously & is an absolute mess. I would imagine that the various reported production problems were the reason, nothing in the film makes any real sense & things, people, sub-plots & unnecessary flashbacks just come & go with little regard for narrative cohesion. There are a few odd flashbacks, Donald Pleasence's character Don Alvise just rambles on about God for a few scenes before he is completely dropped, why would Professor Catalano spend his entire life studying Nosferatu & when he finally finds him decides to commit suicide, what was in the coffin, why did half it's face glow red & then turn to dust & what the hell are all those gypsies & that woman's magic crystal ball all about? The whole film feels fractured & that various different people with opposing ideas & aims worked on it. Having said that it's watchable & just about strange enough to maintain ones interest plus the ironic ending where Nosferatu who is tired of eternal life & wants to die is hunted by some Vampire hunters who actually kill Helietta instead & since Nosferatu needs the unconditional love of a virgin to die the Vampire hunters have in fact achieved the opposite of what they wanted to do.

Right, now lets get this straight shall we. Apparently producer Caminito hired Maurizio Lucidi as director & he even shot a few scenes but Caminito fired him. Caminito then hired Pasquale Squitieri to write & direct, however his screenplay was apparently too expensive to shoot so he was sacked as well. Caminito then hired a third director Mario Caiano, unfortunately on his first day Kinski got into a 'violent argument' with Caiano & he too left the director's chair. Caminito then decided to just direct the thing himself but had no experience so he was helped by his assistant Luigi Cozzi, but it doesn't end there folks because it is also reported that Kinski shot a fair amount of the film himself. The saying 'too many cooks spoil the broth' comes to mind & I think it's a perfect phrase to describe Nosferatu a Venezia. The film is undoubtedly stylish & has some great scenes but they're lost within the mess of a story. Forget about any gore, a bit of blood & a few people fall on some spiked railings, that's it. There's some nudity as well if that's your thing.

Technically the film is very good with some great costumes, sets & Venice itself makes for an unusual location. It has nice cinematography & music, it's just a shame the film had so many behind-the-camera problems. The acting was OK although am I the only one who thinks Kinski looks terrible in this? He looks like Peter Stringfellow on a bad day!

Nosferatu a Venezia was a disappointment, if the story had been stronger this could have been a decent sequel, as it is it's a curious mess both in front of & behind-the-camera. Could have been so much more, watch Nosferatu the Vampyr again instead.

Mixed Results from a Troubled Production

[Michael_Elliott · 13 February 2010]

Nosferatu in Venice (1988)

** (out of 4)

Klaus Kinski returns to the role of Nosferatu in this Italian film that was originally suppose to be a follow-up to Herzog's 1979 film. After various production issues including two director's being fired, the film ended up pretty much being 100% on its own with the only connection to the earlier film being Kinski. In the film, vampire hunter Paris Catalano (Christopher Plummer) travels to Venice, the last known location of the vampire Nosferatu (Kinski). Catalano tries to locate the whereabouts of the vampire who he believes has a desire to finally die. This is a rather interesting failure that has a lot going for it but it's obvious the production issues caused a lot of problems especially during the first part of the movie. The film starts off very ambitious as it centers on the Plummer character in current times but we then have several flashbacks to the earlier days of Nosferatu and how he became who he is. This was an interesting idea but it never really works for several reasons and one of them is a bizarre rock score that doesn't fit anything we see. Another reason these flashbacks never work is because at times it's hard to follow what exactly is going on and why certain flashbacks might be happening. Then, around the fifty-minute mark, something strange happens and the film actually turns extremely entertaining as Nosferatu finds himself in current times and falling in love with a young black lady who might just hold the key to his eventual death. Yes, Kinski drove several directors away from the film and this is partly to blame of the uneven film but you also have to give him credit because he turns in a great performance. He has his long blonde hair flowing and there's no chalk make-up so we get to see this Nosferatu in a very human-like state and the actor makes us feel sorry for this person who simply won't die. I found Kinski really intense throughout the film and this certainly spills over for several entertaining scenes but I think the romantic side works the best. Plummer is also pretty good in his rather thankless role and we even get Donald Pleasence in a role but he's pretty much wasted. Barbara De Rossi and Anne Knecht are both good as the ladies in the pack. Augusto Caminito, Mario Caiano, Luigi Cozzi and Maurizio Lucidi all did some work on the film but it was Caminito who ended up shooting the majority of the film. Even Kinski was apparently in charge of directing his scenes so who knows what was really going on with this production. It's certainly a very troubled movie but at the same time there's just so much here that does work in the end. We get some rather strong atmosphere and being 1988 and from Italy, there's much more sex, nudity and blood than normal, which is a plus. I doubt art house fans are going to enjoy this thing but if you're a horror fan and like Kinski then it would be worth your time to check this out. It's certainly not going to replace the Herzog film but it's an interesting little movie.

Venice is for vampires

[unbrokenmetal · 5/10 · 5 January 2014]

A vampire hunter (Christopher Plummer) goes to Venice where the infamous vampire Nosferatu (Klaus Kinski) was last seen 2 centuries ago, and soon Old Two Teeth starts biting necks again, as old habits die hard. Traditional methods like sunlight or the sign of the cross do not scare Nosferatu, but it is said the love of a virgin might be dangerous to him, is any of the ladies interested?

It's not a good movie, it's not a bad movie, it simply is a pile of various bits and pieces, ranging from genius to rubbish. After several directors were fired, producer Caminito finished the movie somehow - I imagine it must have been a case of "it's better to make a painful break than draw out the agony". Venice, however, is a perfect setting for a vampire movie with its ancient, dark, decaying buildings. The warm, colorful carnival scenes provide stark contrast for the cold blue light of the early morning chases when Nosferatu is looking for victims. Unfortunately, when the tension is rising, often something ridiculous happens, for example the attempt to shoot the vampire with a shotgun (results in a cannonball hole to see through) which will immediately destroy the efforts. It's too clumsy to appeal to an art movie audience (who may have enjoyed Herzog's Nosferatu) and too confusing to be Saturday night fun for horror flick fans. Under the circumstances of its production, it's no surprise that 'Nosferatu a Venezia' failed, but I admit it is at least an interesting failure which is not just another vampire movie.

I watched the Italian language DVD which has no subtitles in other languages.

Never disturb a vampire having sex or he may bite off ur lips. Kinski as a Dracula in the 1979 version was bald but here he applied Minoxidil. Check out his long mullet.

[Fella_shibby · 4/10 · 1 September 2020]

I saw this for the first time few years back but forgot to write a review. Since i am on a Dracula marathon, i felt like putting up a review of this messed up film. Dont wanna revisit this lame one. It has good atmosphere but lousy editing. I remember when it first released in India in a theater during the early 90s but never got a chance cos the movie was termed as a softcore n i wasnt an adult then. As a standalone vampire film, it works well when it comes to the foggy, gothic n brooding atmosphere. In fact it has some good kills. It has nudity of two hot babes. People r impaled on the iron fences, a man's lips r bitten off, etc. Due to the low budget, the gut exploding scene is badly done. From far off one can see a perfect circle hollow in the guts. In fact, John Saxon's much earlier made film, Cannibal Apocalypse got a much better gut exploding scene.

Our vampire once again played by the real life notorious Kinski, is easy on the females on screen, he never kills em but kisses their tits n fondles it. He even does thrusting n that too without getting naked on top of a nude babe. I dont kno hows that possible but his popped up forehead vein is hilarious. Now it gets even more wierd, a naked babe lays on top of Kinski n Kinski again with his full clothes on. Kinski in real life was accused of sexual molestation by his daughters. The actress from this film too accused him of sexual abuse. She accused Kinski of putting his fingers in her vagina. One helluva bad vampire man. The editing is lousy, the screenplay is abysmal n Christopher Plummer n Donald Pleasance r wasted. What prompted these two fellas to star in this lame film? But one thing is for sure, Kinski got the fun part.

completely awful!

[Aylmer · 2/10 · 15 February 2008]

It's hard to discern sometimes, but a movie has either "got it" or it does not. This movie has absolutely no ability to engage to its storyline, which doesn't even make sense in the first place.

Granted, I'm not the biggest fan of Herzog's "Nosferatu" which I found to be pretty slow and tedious. At least I found some appreciation in its stylishness and Kinski's heartfelt and somewhat sympathetic performance as the impish Count Dracula.

None of that returns for this shallow retread. Kinski plays an entirely different character, more of some punk rock demigod than a Vampire. The film doesn't even appear sure what time period it's taking place in, and several subplots (two involving unconnected groups of vampire hunters) feel completely extraneous and do nothing for the film. The only thing it has going for it is a reasonably good cast, though unfortunately they here provide the worst performances of their respective careers. Plummer looks particularly embarrassed... so much so that rumor has it he suffered an unexplained heart attack during the chaotic filming.

One of the worst, most useless horror films to come from Italy in the 1980's, and yes, I've seen GHOSTHOUSE.

Rethink of the vampire legend is brooding and atmospheric and recommended for those who don't need a another run of the mill vampire film

[dbborroughs · 7/10 · 30 October 2006]

Christopher Plummer goes to Venice to investigate the last known appearance of Nosferatu during the Carnival of 1786.Plummer seems to think that the vampire is searching for a means to put an end to his torment and actually be dead. He stays with a family who legend says, has the vampire trapped in a tomb in the basement. After a séance "the vampire" appears and then it becomes a question of how do you put the evil back into the box.

Thats a poor description for a very moody, very good rethink of the vampire legend. In theory this is a modern day sequel to Werner Herzog's remake of the FW Murnau's silent original. However other than the fact that Klaus Kinski plays the vampire the films are pretty much separate films. Here the vampire is a force outside of nature, he goes out during the day, religious objects don't affect him and he has powers beyond those of normal vampires. To be honest this film's idea of vampires and their creation is very different than what is considered "normal" vampire lore.

This is a film thats a bit more form over content, but its still weaves a magical spell. Its a very atmospheric haunted Venice story where mood and feeling is all. Its a film designed to make you feel creepy and uneasy and not so much scary in "the jump and scream variety". It helps that the film rethinks what a vampire is. Going back to folklore where things other than a bite on the neck was required to turn someone undead, this film keeps you off balance since you can't be sure what is real with in the film's world.

Adding a great deal to the film are the performances of the excellent cast. Christopher Plummer's vampire hunter is a wonderful man of science who's pronouncements give a weight to the proceedings that would me missing in lesser hands. We believe in whats going on, because he does. Even in the early scenes when there is some doubt as to whats real and what isn't Plummer's intensity keeps things on track. Klaus Kinski as the vampire is a brooding, sad, sexual menace that says very little but wanders through his scenes with a power and intensity lacking in most vampires. Here is an ages old world weary soul who is forced to play peoples stupid games but who really just wants to be loved and most of all to die.

The cinematography of this film is extraordinary. Venice is a character in every shot. You get a sense of place and of dread with every picture. This is one of the most beautiful films I've seen, and its fog shrouded vistas of Venice in the morning deserve to be hung on the wall.

This is an amazing film, more creepy than scary, but one that is none the less haunting. This is a lost treasure for those who can appreciate horror films as being more than just the traditional sort.

7.5 out of 10 (7 out of 10 for IMDb purposes)

Stinky pooh.

[jacobjohntaylor1 · 4/10 · 8 October 2015]

Nosferatu the Vampire is an awful movie. So it had to be popular and it had to have a sequel that is even worst. The 1922 version of Nosferatu is a great movie. It is one of the scariest movies ever made. And this is just awful. It is badly written. It has an awful ending. It not scary at all. This movie is a wast of time. It is also a wast of money do not see this awful movie. Read the book Dracula. See the 1922 version Nosferatu. See the 1931 version of Dracula. Do see this awful sequel to Nosferatu the vampire. The ending is so stupid. There are so many good Dracula movies out there and this one is awful. Do not see this movie. It is total pooh pooh.

Mysterious and strange vampire movie with Kinski reprising role and set in a really foggy Venice

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 17 May 2021]

This Nosferatu a Venezia 1988 deals with Professor París Catalano : Cristopher Plummer is looking for the disgustingly terrible count Dracula who long time disappeared at a 1786 carnival in Venice . Ultimately , Catalano follows the tracks in a Venetian palace , as Dracula suddenly shows up while looks for a lover : Barbara Del Rossi to suck . Then Professor Catalano and Dr Barneval : Yorgo Voyagis go after him through a deadly chase , as they discover by means of a medium season that Nosferatu/Dracula is seeking the eternal death along with an immortal love .

This is a thrilling mystery and a chilling psycho-drama of lust . This Italian film is a sort of sequel to Werner Herzog's Nosferatu the Vampyre 1979 though very inferior to excellent film directed by Herzog that at the same time was a modern remake to 1922 silent classic Nosferatu by W. R. Murnau . This Nosferatu a Venize 1988 is a captivating and strange experience with scary images , imaginative sets and gorgeous photography from a very foggy Venice . It is a really atmospheric film with scary and creepy frames , though extremely disjointed, including a lot of flaws , failures and gaps . It features the great klaus Kisnki as the rodent-like Dracula/Nosferatu , though without make-up, only protruding teeth, as he puts his usual grim faces , gestures and rare gesticulation . When Kinski played this Nosferatu he was at his best period , having played for Werner Herzog important films as Firzcarraldo, Woyzeck , Cobra Verde , Aguirre Wrath of God . Co-stars Christopher Plummer as the astute professor who visits Venice to investigatigate the last known appearance of the vampire and he attempts to put a final to his life once and for all . Kinski and Plummer are well accompanied by a good cast as Barbara De Rossi, Yorgo Voyagis , Mickey Knox , brief appearance by Donald Pleasence and beautiful Elvire Audray who some years later committed suicide .

It packs glamorous and brilliant cinematography by Tonino Nardi, filmed , of course , on location in Venice , Veneto, Italy . As well as senstive and mysterious musical score by Luigi Ceccarelli and the great Vangelis in his ordinary style . The motion picture was regularly directed , it seem to be the shooting was an extreme chaos allegedly due to continuous interruptions, and requirements of a demanding Kinski , and with various directors as Mario Caiano , Maurizio Lucidi , Luigi Cozzi , even Klaus Kinski filmed some scenes , and eventually producer Augusto Caminito completed. Rating : 5.5/10 .Average but acceptable and passable .

Nosfera2/10

[BA_Harrison · 2/10 · 16 May 2021]

Klaus Kinski plays Nosferatu, an ancient vampire who is summoned during a seance, awakened from his centuries old slumber to feed upon a band of gypsies, and Helietta (Barbara De Rossi), daughter of an influential Venetian matriarch. Christopher Plummer plays Professor Paris Catalano, an expert on vampirism who is hunting Nosferatu, and horror legend Donald Pleasence is utterly wasted in the pointless role of a priest. The professor eventually tracks the bloodsucker and his victims to a 'plague cemetery on Dog Island' (great name for a prog metal album!) where he confronts the monster.

Vampire in Venice is slower and more aimless than a gondolier who's knocked back a few too many Bellinis during his lunch break. Klaus Kinksi dons rat-like fangs again for this sequel-of-sorts to Werner Herzog's 1979 Nosferatu remake, but being the uncontrollable type, the actor refused to appear in full vampire make-up this time, instead opting for hair extensions that make him look like a member of The Lost Boys who actually grew up. Halfway through the film, it seems as though Kinksi decided not to wear the fangs either. It's that kind of film: a shambolic mess, not helped by the fact that it passed through the hands of several directors, including Italian trash legend Luigi Cozzi. The result is a boring, drab (Venice is shot in a washed out palette of monotonous greys and blues), incomprehensible piece of garbage that takes itself way too seriously: it makes Herzog's film look like a barrel of laughs in comparison.

1.5/10, generously rounded up to 2 for the gaping gun-shot hole in Nosferatu's stomach, the old lady impaled on the railings, and the hot, stark-naked gypsy girl who lucky old Kinski gets to romp with.

Truly atmospheric.

[HumanoidOfFlesh · 8/10 · 8 May 2003]

"Nosferatu a Venezia"(1986,Augusto Caminito)is one of the better vampire movies I have seen.Klaus Kinski is truly memorable as Nosferatu,the prince of darkness and Barbara De Rossi is hauntingly beautiful.The film is very atmospheric and has an excellent orchestral score by Luigi Ceccarelli.Set in Venice during the carnival it provides plenty of eerie atmosphere.Highly recommended,especially if you're into vampiric horror movies!

Pretty good, but falls short compared to its predecessors.

[Hey_Sweden · 7/10 · 3 October 2021]

Intended as an unofficial sequel to Werner Herzogs' 1979 rethink of the silent classic from 1922, this decent horror film does manage to get some things right, even if it's not completely satisfying. A professor named Catalano (a very earnest Christopher Plummer) is called to modern-day Venice to investigate the last known appearance of the title fiend (Klaus Kinski, reprising his role in his next-to-last performance) at a local carnival in the 18th century. After he and others hold a seance, they come to learn what Nosferatu really desires most, but it remains to be seen if they're up to the task of defying him - much less destroying him.

The script here is not always terribly coherent in terms of explaining character stories and motivations, but this picture still contains plenty of potent atmosphere. The change of setting works to its advantage, and overall the story is taken QUITE seriously, with little to no humour to speak of. Interestingly, our heroes are portrayed as rather weak, making the haunted, sad-eyed antagonist a more compelling character. And Kinski is able to deliver one of his lower-key performances. That doesn't mean, however, that Nosferatu doesn't have his bestial, savage moments. And for a character who supposedly would welcome his own demise, he is always able to successfully thwart his nemeses' efforts.

One major asset is the lovely music score, partially composed by Luigi Ceccarelli and partially derived from Vangelis' album "Mask". The use of imagery is excellent, and the picture does have arty inclinations although it also takes the time to include some female nudity. The cast, also including such names as Greek actor Yorgo Voyagis ("Jesus of Nazareth") and Donald Pleasence ("Halloween"), is variable, but Pleasence himself can be quite amusing, especially when he's hamming it up near the end.

Worth a look for Kinski fans, and especially people desiring an atypical vampire saga, this reportedly employed several directors, including the credited one (Augusto Caminito), Luigi Cozzi, and even Kinski himself.

Seven out of 10.

This may be the worst movie ever made.

[MaxLange · 1/10 · 7 April 1999]

This is an extremely boring version of the classic Dracula legend that should be removed from the shelves of the video stores. Save your $2.95 and rent Bela Lugosi's "Dracula" or Christopher Lee's "The Horror of Dracula".

atmospheric and chilling!

[davethorne700 · 21 August 2002]

I haven't seen this film for years but it has left lasting images and atmospheres in my mind. I seem to recall the score being really interesting aswell. The camera and cinematography from what i can remember was amazing.- Showing gondalas sailing through the fog in Venice, a stunning location to say the least. It also boasts one of the prettiest actress's ever, in the shape of De Rossi. All this together with Kinski creeping around as Nosferatu makes for essential viewing.

Men Standing in Boats and Walking Around Venice

[Cineanalyst · 3/10 · 9 July 2018]

A semi-sequel or reworking of Werner Herzog's 1979 "Nosferatu," which itself was a remake of F.W. Murnau's 1922 silent-film "Nosferatu," "Nosferatu in Venice" is a far cry from the brilliance of Murnau's original, let alone Bram Stoker's novel "Dracula," for which Murnau's film was an unauthorized adaptation. I'm not a fan of Herzog's remake; it's a slow and dreary affair that eliminates much of the intelligence of Murnau's work without substituting anything especially thoughtful itself. But, this, "Nosferatu in Venice," is worse. The most compelling parts left in Herzog's remake--mostly the plague stuff and the correspondingly appropriate drab cinematography--after its corruption of the themes of naturalism from Murnau's film, which reworked the subtext of venereal disease from Stoker's book, are even further debased here.

What there is is a derivative dreary look based on the Herzog film, including an abundance of dissolves and multiple-exposure shots; the stupid romance stuff Herzog added, ad nauseam; a complete rejection of Nosferatu as representing anything natural, besides brief mentions of plague, and, instead, adopting some generic horror film type exploitation of Catholic iconography and the occult, sex and nudity and cheap special effects; and only one decent shadow of the vampire shot (the 1922 film is especially famous for its shadows). And, of course, Klaus Kinski returning to the Dracula-esque role; except, this time he refused to wear the sad clown makeup and, reportedly, was such a terror to work with that the film went through several directors, which is surely part of the reason the film is such a mess. At least, Kinski is a bit lighter of foot this outing, although he's still quite stiff in his delivery. The film in general somehow manages to be seemingly as dull and slow as Herzog's despite its average shot length being only approximately 6 seconds (my count) compared to the excruciating approximately 20 seconds (per the cinemetrics website) of the '79 film. Indeed, the editing in this film is choppy, especially during the special effects scenes. And the musical score is constant and annoying.

The reason it's so boring is surely due to its lack of much of a plot. It's full of tedious scenic shots of Venice, of shots of birds (and some barking dogs and, presumably to Herzog's disgust, only one insert shot of rats), and of men standing in boats and, mostly Kinski, walking around. The relatively sparse dialogue is repetitive and mostly consists of exposition and stupidity. See, Nosferatu wants to die, but he needs to be loved by a virgin first.

On the plus side, he's a comparatively strong vampire. I've been watching a lot of Dracula movies since reading Stoker's novel and so many of them feature such weak vamps it's hard to believe they'd ever have lifespans longer than humans. Also, Christopher Plummer plays the Van Helsing type here, a role he'd also play in "Dracula 2000," and Donald Pleasence, also of "Halloween" series fame, plays a priest here after already having played Dr. Seward in the 1979 Universal "Dracula."

(Mirror Note: Like other bad Dracula-esque movies, such as some of the Hammer sequels and the '79 Universal film, this one is inconsistent in whether or not vampires cast reflections. The Nosferatu does cast a reflection in water on the ground in an early scene, but he later doesn't cast a reflection in a mirror at a party. Splitting the difference, once he acquires a virgin's love, his reflection gradually appears as he looks in a mirror--a laughable scene that reminds me of "Nocturna" (1979), where the vampire saw her reflection due to the power of disco dancing.)

A stylish muddle

[ofumalow · 5/10 · 16 February 2021]

This not-exactly-a-sequel to Herzog's remake, though with Kinski in the same role (albeit without the distinctive makeup-he apparently just refused to wear it again) is much better produced than the vast majority of 1980s Italian horror movies. The locations, costuming and photography are well above average, making the whole enterprise seem at least halfway to being a truly a quality effort. But despite that, and the fairly prestigious cast, the script runs a narrow gamut between the pedestrian and the messy, with some story continuity so weak you have to wonder if major scenes were left unfilmed, and the whole had to be patched together as well as possible in the editing room. (That wouldn't be surprising, as the producer went through several directors before deciding to take the job himself. Given the resulting production delays, his directorial inexperience, and the inevitable Kinski behavior problems, it seems likely the shoot was heavily compromised.)

Anyway, this movie is a bit of an attractive mess, jumbling together flashbacks, flamenco interludes, sexploitation, several deaths by fang, several others by fence-spike, a brief incongruous "Superman"-esque flying scene, and no coherent fix on the vampire's powers at all. (He seems to command wind, while having no particular problem with crosses or daylight.) Kinski walks though the movie looking aged-rockstar-cool (save when his fangs make him a little too Bugs Bunny-ish), Christopher Plummer (as a Van Helsing type) looks like he can't wait to fire the agent who got him here, but still feels professionally obligated to pretend to take his part seriously. Donald Pleasance simply seems superfluous; even when whipped into a ranting frenzy, he doesn't quite seem germane to the plot, such as it is.. Yorgo Voyagis, who may have been great in Greek cinema for all I know, is wooden once again in an international production. Barbara De Rossi looks very beautiful, which is all her part requires. (Well, that and a whole lot of nudity.)

Sometimes "Nosferatu in Venice" seems like it's aiming for some kind of melancholy pathos, sometimes just for rote thrills and kills (none very effectively done). Throughout the visual presentation has a certain poetical sumptuousness. (Kudos to the location scout-you can tell the film's largely 18th-century interiors are real places, not studio sets.) It doesn't make the leap to actual poetry, though, because the script is such a patch job. It's hard to tell just what the writer-director originally had in mind, because the film definitely has elements of an ambitious vision, but also major signs of having only realized that vision in part. So, not a good movie-but an interesting and watchable failure.

OVERINDULGED STAR

[kirbylee70-599-526179 · 4/10 · 28 June 2021]

Klaus Kinski is an unusual film star. He was not the typical handsome rogue many movies called for and played in everything from westerns to horror to high drama. While he appeared as a bad guy in numerous foreign films he wasn't noticed much until bit parts in the Sergio Leone westerns and the films he made with director Werner Herzog like AGUIRRE THE WRATH OF GOD.

In 1979 Kinski made the film NOSFERATU THE VAMPIRE with Herzog. Taking their cue from the famous silent film NOSFERATU Kinski was decked out in makeup throughout the film. It was a success and still talked about to this day. It only seemed natural that the success of the film would call for a sequel. That didn't happen until 1988.

The story involves a vampire hunter named Professor Paris Catalano (Christopher Plummer) who arrives in Venice seeking Dracula who was last seen in the area during the Carnival of 1786. Catalano believes that Dracula was here seeking a way to end his immortality. While in Venice Catalano is staying with the Canins family. It is rumored that the remains of Dracula are buried away in the sub chambers of their mansion.

As Catalano searches for information and the remains of Dracula there is another problem at hand. Helietta Canin (Barbara De Rossi) resembles Dracula's long lost love Letizia. Of course the group holds a séance to contact Dracula which causes him to rise from the grave and he then goes after Helietta. Can he be stopped?

The movie is...a hot mess. Actor Donald Pleasance is wasted her as a hard drinking priest who takes advantage of the Canin family and their liquor cabinet with little to do but have outburst every now and then. Plummer is exceptional and leaves you wishing there were more movies that involved him as this character. Kinski is, well, Kinski. He looks menacing with his flowing white hair by this time and dark eyes. But it was Kinski who caused the problems of this film.

The story behind the scenes is more interesting than the actual film. Sure it has some sumptuous shots but there is little story to keep it moving forward. The editing and directing are disjointed but that's most likely due to the fact the film had several directors who came and went and that Kinski eventually forced himself onto the producers to direct portions of the film himself. Feeling he was a name draw they indulged his poor behavior and the film lacks because of it.

Stories of Kinski's behavior onset are legendary on this film, one of his last. The sexual abuse of one of his costars during filming, his demands on set and his coming and going as he pleased did nothing to help the production. The end result is interesting to watch but not from an entertaining standpoint. Instead it's fascinating to watch this actor chew the scenery along with the necks of his victims.

Once more Severin has done the film better than it deserves and save it from obscurity. They've begun with a 2k scan from the original film negative. Extras include a documentary "Creation is Violent" with anecdotes from Kinski's final years, cast and crew interviews and trailers. The film may not be the great horror film it started out as but it is an interesting look into the strange mind of Klaus Kinski.

Weird movie but it does a decent job at capturing the right required atmosphere.

[Boba_Fett1138 · 6/10 · 8 June 2010]

Don't really know if this movie can be regarded as an official sequel to the 1979 Werner Herzog movie "Nosferatu: Phantom der Nacht". Yes, it has Klaus Kinski again in it as the Nosferatu character but that is basically all that these two movies have in common. This movie got made by an entirely different production crew and even in an entirely different country.

5 directors later this is the end result. This movie was a real troubled production, that suffered from multiple delays during production, due to the falling out of directors and cast members, which resulted in the end that 5 different directors at certain points worked on the movie. The movie is a bit of a mess but at least its still an good looking mess.

Don't even really know what is the story in all of this. We have Nosferatu walking around in Venice and Christopher Plummer and Donald Pleasence but what they are doing in this movie, I still can't really tell. It has a pretty much non-existent story and it pretty much only relies on its dark eerie atmosphere and presence of once again Klaus Kinski as the immortal blood sucking vampire.

Kinski himself refused to wear the heavy make up he wore in "Nosferatu: Phantom der Nacht" and even didn't wanted to cut his hair for the role. So his look in this movie is very different from "Nosferatu: Phantom der Nacht". It's also definitely less scary looking all and it seems that they thought it would be enough to let the character stare a lot to make him work out as a scary or mysterious one. No, it just doesn't ever work, which makes his character a disappointing one and also makes it all seem quite pointless that Klaus Kinski after 9 years reprises his acclaimed role again. It was also one of the last movies he ever did, I wish I could say it also was an impressive and worthy one.

But it's just not a movie that you'll hate watching. I liked its style and atmosphere, that at times even became somewhat close to that of "Nosferatu: Phantom der Nacht". The movie is certainly a joy to watch for the eyes but then again which Venice based movie isn't?

Too bad that the movie just isn't ever really going anywhere. The movie makes some weird choices and the story just doesn't provide anything interesting enough. Not that you'll be bored with it but it's also far from a satisfying movie. It's a pretty pointless movie once you start thinking about it and is one you can really easily do without.

6/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Vampire In Venice

[BandSAboutMovies · 4/10 · 21 October 2023]

August Caminito planned a sequel to Werner Herzog's Nosferatu the Vampyre. Step one: Get Kalus Kinski. That wasn't so hard, as Kinski had already spoken to the writer of the film, Carlo Alberto Alfieri. Kinski signed a two movie deal with Caminito, finally getting to make his passion project Paganini.

Step two: Get a director. Not as simple. Originally, Maurizio Lucidi (The Designated Victim) was going to direct and even shot some scenes that are in the movie but Caminito thought that this should have a higher budget and a more well-considered director. He hired Pasquale Squitieri (Vengeance Is a Dish Best Served Cold) but Squitieri changed the script so much that he was let go. Mario Caiano (Nightmare Castle) was next, but he couldn't get along with Kinski.

That's because Kinski refused to wear fangs or shave his head. He argued with Caiano and would not listen to the director saying cut before locking himself into his trailer, as he thought that he was directing the film. In response, Caiano ran into Kinski's trailer and shouted, "Now you're directing the movie!"

It was decided that Caminito would direct the film. He'd only directed two other movies, Maschi e femmine and Grandi cacciatori, which also had Kinski. He had help from Luigi Cozzi, who shot second unit. But Kinski remained, well, Klaus Kinski. He kept changing where he would act from, causing lighting set-ups to be redone and he would never do a second take. It got so bad that the entire crew quit and would not come back until Kinski apologized.

If that's not bad enough, Kinski fired Amanda Sandrelli and replaced her with actor Yorgo Voyagis' girlfriend Anne Knecht, who was visiting the set.

After six weeks of shooting, Caminito gave up and tried to edit it together.

A seance awakens Nosferantu (Kisnki) from two hundred years sleep and throws Princess Catalano (Maria Cumani Quasimodo) out a window before stalking her daughter Henrietta (Barbara De Rossi), seducing her while her sister Maria (Knecht) watches.

The monster then easily defeats Professor Paris Catalano (Christopher Plummer), Father Alvise (Donald Pleasence) and Dr. Barneval (Voyagis) before taking Henrietta. Catalano then shouts that only a pure woman willing to give Nosferatu her true love can destroy him before he kills himself by jumping into a canal.

Maria tries to save her sister and catches the vampire's eye when she climbs to a tower and jumps to her death. He catches her and informs her that he wants to die, but he needs a virgin to love him. They become a couple and wipe out most of the rest of the cast before Dr. Barneval shoots Maria. As she dies, she begs for the undead beast to turn her. He tells her that that is a punishment that he can never give. They wander into the fog without a resolution.

I think I made this sound a little more cohesive than it really ends up.

Characters show up and we have no idea who they are and then disappear. Some of that is because Kinski was a lunatic. He sexually assaulted actresses Elvire Audray and Barbara De Rossi. With Audray, he physically beat her, tore off her clothes and bit her between the thighs, while he was brutally rough in his lovemaking scene with De Rossi.

Every time I write about Kinski, it's more about how insane he was than how great he is in movies.

A sexual satyr in Venice: Paganini with fangs

[t_atzmueller · 6/10 · 24 February 2013]

Klaus Kinski was an exceptional actor who had the rare gift that he could turn a mediocre, even bad movie, through his sheer presence into a spectacle. His often very short but poignant performances in various B- and Thrash-movies are evidence enough.

However, according to director Werner Herzog, during the shooting of the final scene of "Cobra Verde", Kinski muttered something along the line of 'I'm spent. I'm empty. I'm not there anymore'. Surely, the great actor would pass away a few years later, but not before starring in a number of films that would only confirm that statement. Kinskis own "Paganini" and "Nosferatu in Venice" would stand testament to that.

Don't be fooled by the title. Werner Herzogs "Nosferatu" and "Nosferatu in Venice" have only one thing in common: Klaus Kinski playing a vampire. Don't expect any of Herzogs magic; Kinski is decades away from the majestic portrayal of a melancholic Count Dracula. Rather, Kinski was already immersed in his role as Paganini, which he had been virtually obsessed with. His Vampire in Venice is Paganini with fangs, a sexual satyr for who blood and copulation is synonym. Of course, analyzing the vampire mythology, this is technically not incorrect, but given Kinskis own (often proclaimed) hyper-sexuality, it makes the film seem sleazy and the viewer feeling like a voyeur.

That is not to say that the movie is without atmosphere. Venice and its lagoons lend themselves perfectly well for a dark, mystic vampire melodrama and the soundtrack is excellent, only adding to its charm. But why call it "Nosferatu"? (Don't bother answering, it's a rhetoric question).

Hence, this is one of the rare Kinski films where the actor doesn't enrich the picture but his participation is actually the main flaw.

Still, the last 10 years haven't been kind to fans of vampire films; unless you're not through puberty, it's unlike you be able to enjoy the modern "Twighlight"-vampires and in the light of that, "Nosferatu in Venice" is an acceptable, though flawed and often disjointed, Gothic horror-story. 6 points from 10.

What the actual hell is this film?

[DanTheMan2150AD · 5/10 · 26 October 2023]

I have very fond memories of Hertzog's Nosferatu from last year's Spooky Season, a film that I have now come to prefer over the silent original. Unfortunately, Nosferatu in Venice is an unholy mess, it's a monumental muddle with flashes of brilliance, but it's rendered bereft of any coherency. Despite the script's ambitions, the dialogue is often poor if not ridiculous but often benefits from the delivery and halfway decent performances from Christopher Plummer and Donald Pleasance. Other areas of notability include the brisk pace of the film, Augusto Caminito's direction and Tonino Nardi's cinematography which captures the canals and Gothic architecture to great effect and a passable score from Luigi Ceccarelli, although the use of Vangelis' mask is what really stands out. As for Kinski, he completely sinks the film, certifying that he is indeed genuine scum. Just some of his antics in this film include: causing multiple directors to quit, refusing to wear his makeup or the fangs and sexually assaulting multiple people, footage of which is included in the film... Jesus Christ. Nosferatu in Venice is anything if not ambitious. Confusing and scattershot, with some awkwardly constructed scenes and goofy editing choices, though the atmosphere of Gothic dread certainly helps somewhat leaving it as an oddly poetic, if completely nonsensical, take on vampirism.

Klaus Kinski shines in this moody, melancholy and atmospheric vampire horror picture

[Woodyanders · 8/10 · 21 November 2006]

Late, great wacko fruitbag iconoclastic actor Klaus Kinski gives a marvelously threatening, overwhelming, terrifyingly bestial and sometimes even strangely touching performance as Nosferatu, an evil, indestructible, all-powerful vampire who preys upon an affluent aristocratic family in Venice, Italy during the bleak, hopeless, fear-ridden time of the Black Death. Dedicated dying vampire hunter Christopher Plummer and pious, self-righteous priest Donald Pleasence make a futile and foolhardy stand against the foul, parasitic, yet anguished subhuman creature of darkness.

Under Augusto Caminito's able, stately, subdued direction "Nosferatu in Venice" bravely explores mankind's stark fear of and inability to accept his own mortality as well as man's profound, but impractical desire to somehow transcend said mortality. But as the eternally tormented Nosferatu proves immortality can be more of a burden than a blessing, because he and all others like himself are perpetually cursed to endure the suffering of countless mortal others. Tonino Nardi's beauteous, misty, breathtaking cinematography and Luigi Ceccarelli's wondrous, elegant, potent orchestral score prodigiously contribute to the considerable substance of this frighteningly (and, yes, even fascinatingly) morbid, oddly affecting, soulful beauty of a film. The movie's unflinchingly desolate, flesh-crawling, funereal ambiance, relaxed, lulling pace, pervasively nonchalant air of insurmountable nihilism, and somewhat disjointed narrative isn't for every taste, but viewers who are willing to accept this disturbing, challenging, gripping and powerful feature on its own macabre and twisted terms should find it to be very rewarding. Kinski's forceful and singularly wicked presence alone distinguishes this picture as an extraordinary work; few other actors can even begin to convey the same harrowingly tangible sense of extreme unbreakable demonic menace that Kinski effortlessly exuded. A gallant, tough-minded, thematically rich and grotesquely lovely addition to the vampire horror genre.

Lacks bite

[Stevieboy666 · 4/10 · 12 August 2023]

In 1979 director Werner Herzog made "Nosferatu the Vampyre", a classic horror movie starring Klaus Kinski in the title role. Vampire in Venice is an unofficial follow up, sadly no Herzog this time but Kinski is back as the vampiore. Only this time he has swapped a bold head for long hair and looks more like an ageing rock star who has taken too many drugs. I went to Venice on a school trip in 1986 so for me it was really nice seeing the beautiful Venetian scenery, sadly this is one of the movie's few strengths. Other pluses are people colourfully dressed for carnival, another is a few scenes of female full frontal nudity. Unfortunately the story is slow and confusing,especially the poor ending and Nosferatu appears to be immune from sunlight. It does look nice at times but not even Kinski, Donald Pleasence Christopher Plummer can save it. A disappointment in Venice.

Naff, wannabe-arty Euro shocker

[d1senior · 19 July 2004]

Warning the other characters (and, presumably, the audience) that the seance in which they are about to take part could "provoke reactions of quite terrifying proportions," Christopher Plummer proves himself a less-than-reliable guide through this hideous mess. With pompous, over-cooked music blaring out of every scene, regardless of what is actually taking part on screen, and the kind of existential angst that would make a 14 year old goth blush, 'Vampire In Venice' lurches from one flaccid cliche to another. Gypsies dancing around a fire on the beach at night? Check! Street carnival with masks and silly frocks aplenty? Check! Vampires musing on the pain of spending eternity alone? Please, no more.

The 'horror' scenes appear to parody the entire genre. The film's running time - the video case claimed it was just over 90 minutes, an outright lie - stretches out into the black wastes of infinity, making the experience of watching it akin to sitting through one of Warhol's experiments in cinematic endurance. Klaus Kinski, so watchable in almost anything else, never seems sure whether he's the devil incarnate, or an aging rocker out of retirement for one last comeback gig. Even Donald Pleasance drifts by, unable to make a dent in the vast wall of boring, self-satisfied predictability. The horror of eternity was surely never supposed to be THIS bad.