Watch Nosferatu in Venice For Free

best movie i've ever seen.

A Masterpiece!

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

A semi-sequel or reworking of Werner Herzog's 1979 "Nosferatu," which itself was a remake of F.W. Murnau's 1922 silent-film "Nosferatu," "Nosferatu in Venice" is a far cry from the brilliance of Murnau's original, let alone Bram Stoker's novel "Dracula," for which Murnau's film was an unauthorized adaptation. I'm not a fan of Herzog's remake; it's a slow and dreary affair that eliminates much of the intelligence of Murnau's work without substituting anything especially thoughtful itself. But, this, "Nosferatu in Venice," is worse. The most compelling parts left in Herzog's remake--mostly the plague stuff and the correspondingly appropriate drab cinematography--after its corruption of the themes of naturalism from Murnau's film, which reworked the subtext of venereal disease from Stoker's book, are even further debased here.What there is is a derivative dreary look based on the Herzog film, including an abundance of dissolves and multiple-exposure shots; the stupid romance stuff Herzog added, ad nauseam; a complete rejection of Nosferatu as representing anything natural, besides brief mentions of plague, and, instead, adopting some generic horror film type exploitation of Catholic iconography and the occult, sex and nudity and cheap special effects; and only one decent shadow of the vampire shot (the 1922 film is especially famous for its shadows). And, of course, Klaus Kinski returning to the Dracula-esque role; except, this time he refused to wear the sad clown makeup and, reportedly, was such a terror to work with that the film went through several directors, which is surely part of the reason the film is such a mess. At least, Kinski is a bit lighter of foot this outing, although he's still quite stiff in his delivery. The film in general somehow manages to be seemingly as dull and slow as Herzog's despite its average shot length being only approximately 6 seconds (my count) compared to the excruciating approximately 20 seconds (per the cinemetrics website) of the '79 film. Indeed, the editing in this film is choppy, especially during the special effects scenes. And the musical score is constant and annoying.The reason it's so boring is surely due to its lack of much of a plot. It's full of tedious scenic shots of Venice, of shots of birds (and some barking dogs and, presumably to Herzog's disgust, only one insert shot of rats), and of men standing in boats and, mostly Kinski, walking around. The relatively sparse dialogue is repetitive and mostly consists of exposition and stupidity. See, Nosferatu wants to die, but he needs to be loved by a virgin first.On the plus side, he's a comparatively strong vampire. I've been watching a lot of Dracula movies since reading Stoker's novel and so many of them feature such weak vamps it's hard to believe they'd ever have lifespans longer than humans. Also, Christopher Plummer plays the Van Helsing type here, a role he'd also play in "Dracula 2000," and Donald Pleasence, also of "Halloween" series fame, plays a priest here after already having played Dr. Seward in the 1979 Universal "Dracula."(Mirror Note: Like other bad Dracula-esque movies, such as some of the Hammer sequels and the '79 Universal film, this one is inconsistent in whether or not vampires cast reflections. The Nosferatu does cast a reflection in water on the ground in an early scene, but he later doesn't cast a reflection in a mirror at a party. Splitting the difference, once he acquires a virgin's love, his reflection gradually appears as he looks in a mirror--a laughable scene that reminds me of "Nocturna" (1979), where the vampire saw her reflection due to the power of disco dancing.)

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/

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.

This is an extremely boring version of the classic Dracula legend that should be removed from the shelves of the video stores. Save your $2.95 and rent Bela Lugosi's "Dracula" or Christopher Lee's "The Horror of Dracula".