t_atzmueller 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.

Boba_Fett1138 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.6/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Michael_Elliott 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.

HumanoidOfFlesh "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!