Film review - Nosferatu In Venice (1988)

In the 1930s, Universal Studios begun a phase of horror films dedicated to the gothic monsters of novels such as Frankenstein and Dracula.  Nearly 30 years later, Britain's Hammer company would revive the trend at least until the early 70s.  Needless to say many film makers independent of these institutions would take their own turns at the genre.

1988 saw the infamous German actor Klaus Kinski reprise the role of a vampire in 'Nosferatu In Venice' - also known as 'Vampire In Venice', as it was released in different markets.  Despite this star power, along with an on-screen rival portrayed by the legendary Christopher Plummer, the output was mixed at best.

In ths story, Dr Von Trapp (Plummer) has sailed straight from Austria to Italy, complete with English accent in tact, having dedicated his life's work to studying vampirism and not raising a family of musical kids after all.  He is in voted by local royalty to investigate the last sighting of undead bloodsucker Nosferatu (Kinski) at a Venice carnival 200 years prior.  He is subsequently resurrected following a seance in the palace, where the inevitable carnage follows complete with young women being focal points, including the descendant of his earlier prey who bears a striking resemblance.

Presumably set in contemporary Europe, this movie is both intriguing and disappointing at the same time.  Legend has it that the notoriously difficult Kinski showed up on set and refused to dom the same make-up he wore a decade prior in 'Nosferatu The Vampyre' (1979).  Originally this was a sequel to Werner Herzog's remake of the silent Dracula interpretation, however the project was seemingly snake-bit from day one.  A reported five directors in total - including some direction by Kinski himself - helped make this film, with the producer said to have fired the first three, while still paying them a full salary.

The vision and story would change from the original concept, centred around the traditional Van Helsing versus Dracula chase with religion and sexuality ever-present.  These themes in fairness retain a faithfulness to Bram Stoker's original novel, however it beckons the question how many economically-minded film producers were against the idea.

Plummer's vampire hunter is worth the watch alone, with Donald Pleasance's over-acted priest a mere curiosity more than anything.  Kinski owns the screen, for better or worse, with a dash of charisma even if he more so resembles an ageing, long-haired bloke with fangs rather than the Count incarnate.  The featured statuesque models contribute to the supporting cast - however the real visual eye-opener is the shots of Venice itself: represented here as dying and colourless,  as a metaphor for the central character would yearns to be finally put to rest.  By love.

Neither entirely bad or good a film, which makes it more frustrating of an analysis.  What you could really be doing with halfway through is somebody cracking a joke, if to liven the mood for a moment.  This would be among Kinski's final three films before his passing, although is likely forgotten and with good reason: alleged issued with cast and crew members are reported to have soured the filming experience for those involved.

Is it worth watching?  If you're a vampire aficionado, or fancy a bit of artistic world cinema, yes - but don't get your hopes up.  Save it for a midweek filler as opposed to a weekend treat, and prepare for more questions than answers.