Vampire in Venice

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/

In VAMPIRE IN VENICE, Professor Paris Catalano (Christopher Plummer) is obsessed with tracking down the infamous blood-drinker of the title (Klaus Kinski). When Catalano finds a strange family in Venice, who were originally from Transylvania, he believes he's hit pay dirt.

This leads to the backstory being told, while Donald Pleasence makes an appearance.

When a medium is called in, resulting in a seance, the so-called "Prince of Putridity" returns! Death and doom are the result!

Kinski is quite convincing and threatening in his undead role. His interesting facial features have always made him the perfect villain, whether in horror or crime thrillers. He pulls off being pure eeevil with ease! Plummer is doggedly heroic as the Van Helsing-like Catalano.

While not a bad movie, it does tend to drag on interminably in spots...

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.

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.