Dracula dead and buried in Venice

NOSFERATU IN VENICE (1988)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

I will do anything for a buck

The greatest vampire film I have ever seen was Werner Herzog's masterful remake of F.W. Murnau's 1922 classic "Nosferatu," which starred the grandly theatric Klaus Kinski as the rat-like Dracula (the silent film starred the creepy menace of Max Schreck). The remake was a triumph of atmospheric decay and melancholy mood, a tragic tale of a Dracula who wanted to end his suffering of living century after century. "Nosferatu in Venice" is a sequel I have heard of before, though it is not currently available on video in the United States - I managed to secure a copy through the Chiller Theater convention in New Jersey since I was anxiously curious to see it. The end result is a beautiful bore, an utterly senseless sequel with no significant purpose for its existence. The late Klaus Kinski was the sort of actor who would appear in almost any kind of film no matter how awful - he was not exactly selective and probably needed the money to finance his dream project "Paganini," which I have still not seen.

Kinski returns as Nosferatu, though actually referred to as Dracula in the 1979 original (Nosferatu really means the "undead," so why is he referred to as Nosferatu?) This vampire is no longer rat-like or venomous looking - instead he resembles a lost hippie from a Grateful Dead concert with long white hair and threatening black eyes. There is some story involving Christopher Plummer as an expert on vampires who takes part in a seance to bring back Nosferatu from the dead! Why??? Not sure. Donald Pleasance appears occasionally as some bickering holy priest, and there are lots of terrific, nocturnal shots of the streets of Venice (seemingly unoccupied) and some gypsies who hail the name of Nosferatu, not to mention a ballroom full of people dancing with Venetian masks. Oh, we also see a tomb that is locked by iron straps where some creature resides, ready to pounce.

Nothing in "Nosferatu in Venice" makes much sense, though the central theme seems to be that the vampire wants the blood of a virgin so he can remain dead forever - he is still in desperation to die but continues to torment female victims on the streets of Venice. And there are some briefly erotic, almost softly pornographic sex scenes between Kinski and the virgin and some other woman who may be the reincarnation of a lost love. Maybe...who knows since there is no real clarification of who any of these people are.

For gore fans, there are two scenes of impalement on a courtyard fence, and some fang work on female necks with blood gushing from their wounds. For those who favored the atmosphere of the original, there are some murky shots of Venice and a final scene of the vampire carrying a naked woman in long shot while birds fly through the air. Other than that, this film is silly, hardly terrifying, and contains distracting synthesizer music - Plummer is the sole saving grace with his wonderful, commanding voice.

"Nosferatu in Venice" is hardly the worst of the vampire flicks, but it serves little purpose as a sequel or as a vampire flick. Credited with three directors (no Herzog this time out), this is just another cheaply-made horror flick out for a fast buck.

Footnote: The video version I saw contained Japanese subtitles, which are a distraction, and the voices of the Italian actors seemed to have been dubbed whereas Plummer and Pleasance are obviously speaking in their native tongue.