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.

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.

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.

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.