jacobjohntaylor1
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.
Howard Vause
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.
jaymes_daae
It took me over a year to get this film on video. VAMPIRE IN VENICE (Nosferatu A Venezia) is a semi-sequel to Werner Herzogs' NOSFERATU THE VAMPYRE 1979. However, the only thing in this movie relating to that is the return of Klaus Kinski as Count Dracula (though he's just referred to as 'nosferatu' in this film).Easily one of the best vampire movies ever, it contains a very dark, deadly serious and atmospheric texture. Kinski is as creepy as ever, looking like a cross between Rutger Hauer and a zombified-Mozart! Other well known actors, Christopher Plummer and Donald Pleasence are great in the movie. The soundtrack by Luigi Ceccerelli(!) is breathtaking and memorable, and it seems that Venice herself is a prime character. The film dis-spells religious attempts against vampires and there are some interesting theories on vampiric origins discussed within the feature.My only complaint with this excellent film is the sound quality. The dubbing isn't so bad, but it's hard to make out what certain characters say at any given time. There are a few plot holes, such as, what DOES become of the vampire and his partner and where had Nosferatu been for all those lost years. Luckily, these trivial things don't spoil this arthouse, classy, unforgettable piece of Italian cinema. Let's hope it gets a well deserved DVD release in the near future.
dimadick
At long last a movie who focuses in the vampire itself.My fascination about the genre seem to have the desire to live,you could call it survival instict,but also the wish to die.That's about what every human being has,or else our lifes would be much different,but the vampires have to face both desires getting stronger through the centuries.This movie is has more drama and plot than many other movies.The leading star is much better than Christopher Lee and Bella Lugosi.If you want to see a vampire film which is not laughable this is it.
AD
