Vampire in Venice

I recently watched the Italian film 🇮🇹 Nosferatu in Venice (1985) on Prime. The storyline follows a man tracking down Nosferatu and arriving in Venice, where he believes the vampire is hiding. He hears tales that Nosferatu wishes to die, and the man is willing to help him achieve that goal.

The film is co-directed by Augusto Caminito (White Hunter) and Klaus Kinski (Paganini), who also stars in the film. It also features performances from Barbara De Rossi (Blood Ties), Yorgo Voyagis (Frantic), Elvire Audray (Ironmaster), Christopher Plummer (12 Monkeys), and Donald Pleasence (Halloween).

Overall, this is a very average movie, but there were some elements that I enjoyed. The opening arrival sequence and overall cinematography are gorgeous, with the beautiful settings in Venice adding a lot to the visuals. The storyline is fairly straightforward and not overly imaginative. The kills are average, and the horror elements rely more on setting and atmosphere, though there is a fun fall scene. The background music does a solid job of establishing the mood. The female lead is stunning, and there's some classic Italian nudity. While the poetic ending didn't quite land for me as intended, there was a fun twist that I appreciated.

In conclusion, Nosferatu in Venice is an average addition to the horror genre but might be worth watching for horror enthusiasts looking for something different. I'd give this a 5/10 and recommend it only with the appropriate expectations.

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.

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.

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.

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/