Night Train to Venice

1996 "Last stop... terror!"
2.3| 1h12m| en| More Info
Released: 28 September 1996 Released
Producted By: Take Munich Filmproduction
Country:
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

The Orient Express, on its night trip from Munich to Venice, is full because of the beginning of the carnival in Venice. Between the passengers are a young writer, an actress, and her daughter, an elderly dancer, five neo-nazi punks, and a strange man that seems to have some kind of influence over them through their dreams.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

Take Munich Filmproduction

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime. Watch Now

Trailers & Images

Reviews

Moustroll Good movie but grossly overrated
Lidia Draper Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.
Ezmae Chang This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.
Roxie The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;
tomsview At one point in "Night Train to Venice", Hugh Grant's character suffers from amnesia. It's also what happened to the people who made this film; about two-thirds of the way through, they forgot the story, and wandered off in a different direction; a couple of directions in fact.A journalist, Martin Gimmle (Hugh Grant) travels to Venice by train to deliver a book he has written about Neo-Nazis. Martin is pursued by a gang of Neo-Nazi thugs and a mysterious man, The Stranger (Malcolm McDowell). On the train, Martin has an affair with an actress, Vera (Tahnee Welch) who is travelling to Venice with her daughter. After a number of incidents, the protagonists end up in Venice for the finale.Unfortunately, nearly every plot strand in the film is blurred with extraneous bits of business or simply left unresolved.It's hard to see how Hugh Grant got caught up in this. Maybe he thought a paid holiday to Venice would do him good. He gives it his best shot and brings his usual charm to the table, but the script, such as it is, gives him little chance to be convincing. Drop dead gorgeous Tahnee Welch was never the most animated of actresses and there are scenes here that leave her stranded. The excerpt from "Romeo and Juliet" is painful to watch; she wouldn't have been given a part in a high school production of the Bard's play based on this. However a good director could have coaxed a performance out of her, but more often than not, she lands flat on her back in bed with Hugh on top of her.Malcolm McDowell was more experienced than Hugh and Tahnee and no doubt could recognise a turkey being basted a mile off. His performance is almost as though he was only able to spare half a day for the shoot, and did a whole bunch of looks to camera so they could be cut in later where needed. Unfortunately it's the same look, and it's as though he was trying to pass a kidney stone.But having Malcolm McDowell on board explains one thing; it seems to have inspired director Carlo U. Quinterio to have the Neo-Nazi punks act like Alex's Droogs from "A Clockwork Orange". Old Carlo seems the sort of guy who could latch onto something like that. Could "Night Train to Venice" have worked? Sure. After all, the basic story isn't that different to "North By Northwest". However, instead of simplifying the story and working with the actors to get the most out of their performances, the filmmakers were distracted by everything from carnival masks to pigeons flying across the facades of the palazzos in Venice. Badness is in the eye of the beholder, but when a movie, which obviously had a reasonable budget, major stars and interesting locations turns out to be this incoherent, then it's a strong contender for the worst movie of all time.
Amanda Emilie Mauno Maybe even the worst. I watched this film a few weeks ago. I wish I didn't. I was actually really excited because I am a huge fan of Malcolm and I do enjoy watching Hugh Grant(though not a real fan). I was so disappointed. Half the time I didn't know what was going on, the rest of the time I tried to figure out how long it was until it was finished. I was even more confused at the end. It was so bad I had to laugh and just ask "Was that it? What? How? Why?" during the credits. I was always hoping for it to be more exciting, but nothing ever happened. The cinematography, directing and editing was just awful. There was no real story and you end up with more questions afterwards than when you first started the film, and no answers. I had to read about the film later to find out that the character Malcolm plays (simply called "the stranger" in the credits), is actually supposed to be the Devil himself. That made it even more confusing. I am very generous to give it a 2, and it is simply because Malcolm was really looking hot in this one. But that doesn't really help. People say he sunk really low in Caligula, but that was hundred times better than this rubbish. I gave that an 8. For me Night Train to Venice is the lowest Malcolm has sunk thus far (I've seen more than 25 of his films). I wish I never saw it and if I were to see it again, I would simply skip to the shots with Malcolm in. But it is really awful, avoid it at all cost, even if you are a massive fan of either Hugh or Malcolm.
nsbrd Not aware of this movie until I noticed it in my local video rental outlet more than a decade ago. Upon finding it and reading the box, I thought I was about to discover a hidden cult treasure and, in accord with the title and quality cast, that I was going to be treated to a dangerous thrill-ride of adventure across a darkened Europe-scape; fast, edge-of-seat action and suspense. However, 'twas not to be. Waited patiently for some-odd 20 minutes or so for a situation to emerge that could be perceived as literal plot development (a crucial thread for this style of movie) and thus capture and maintain my interest for the duration of the film but alas, all that had come in this time was just a bunch of half-baked, confused, nasty, disjointed drivel. What a disappointment.
cbraders One of those films that is so terribly awful in every way that it inadvertently has comedy moments. Worth a go if you like terrible dialogue, but be warned this film contains more filler than any other film this side of art school. The "experimental camera and bizarre costumes seem to be plucked from nowhere with no clear connection between various parts of the film. The acting in general is terribly poor with the dialogue comic when it tries to be menacing, Grant is the same as always therefore not great but at the same time not awful either. If you like David Lynch films this maybe for you as it is as confusing as films such as Mullholand Drive, but take into account that there is less meaning in this than even the most bizarre of Lynch's creations. Watch and laugh but do not expect to come away with anything to think about.