|Page 15 of 40:||               |
|Index||394 reviews in total|
I(like many others)read the book and fell in love with Anne Rice's writing and the character "Lestat". And when a movie was released, I couldn't wait to see it. Unlike some people think, I believe that no one but Tom Cruise could have portrayed Lestat better. He was everything that Rice made him out to be and more. Brad Pitt was good, though he did tend to whine at times, but Kirsten Dunst was perfect for the role of Claudia. I hope that the sequel "The Vampire Lestat" is turned into a movie with Cruise returning for the title role. No one but him could possibly play it. Truly a great vampire picture.
I hate Tom Cruise as an actor. He is not sexually attractive whatsoever to me but amazingly he is beyond gorgeous as a vampire and is perfect for Lestat although the man that plays Lestat in Queen of the Damned is way hotter. I thought it was sick how Lestat (tom cruise)and Armand (antonio Banderas) came on to Louis (Brad Pit). Gay vampire love is not very appealing to me. though most of the movies Tom Cruise acts in are to say the least horrible especially having him in them, but Interview with a vampire is a wonderful movie that I would buy and see over and over and over again. I would recommend this to any of my friends especially vampire lovers and I am positive that they would enjoy it as much as I did.
18th. century playboy (Brad Pitt) living a decadent, but empty life takes up a vampire's (Tom Cruise) offer to become an immortal vamp like him, but discovers it isn't all it's creaked up to be. Living a miserable existence in modern times, Pitt tells his life story to a reporter. On the techincal side, this film has much that can be admired. Lush score, great production design, beautiful costumes, some breakthrough performances, but on the other hand it goes on way too long and is often dull and sluggish. Rated R; Graphic Violence and Nudity.
This movie is depraved and decadent, opulent and over-the-top. Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, and Antonio Banderas play interesting characters, but it's Kirsten Dunst who really makes an impression. Some disturbing scenes for the weak of stomach, but the melodramatic story entertains.
Interview With the Vampire is one of the most breathtaking films I've ever seen. The casting was extraordinary, and the plot was truly beautiful in every way. This movie so wonderfully depicts the most intimate emotions of a vampire; the wonder felt when seeing the last sunrise before your demise, the misery felt when a loved one passes away. The dark, grim music only added to the vampire theme, making it swell. The scene where Louis is so greedily feeding from Lestat's arm, and the look of total fulfillment in his eyes is lingering. When Lestat plays the piano, I could hear the music echoing through my mind, and pulsing through my veins. The haunting sound flows, rushing, almost striking me with fear. Ah, Claudia, the little vampire child, so beautiful. She was the very definition of a woman trapped forever in the body of an innocent child. Louis, the man that had forsaken his mortality because of his mourning over his deceased wife and child. This move was terrific!!
This film is based on the novel by my good friend Anne Rice. And the book
was actually based on a short story she wrote back in her college days.
Anne, if you are reading this, I only give it "7" because it is not the kind
of movie I want to see twice, however I admire the script you wrote. You did
it in an overall "comedy" style and it works well that way. Although I
suppose we need to call it a "dark comedy" because of the subject matter and
all the people who die such horrible deaths.
Big stars Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Antonio Banderas are vampires. Pitt is a "sensitive" vampire and feels badly that he has to live his life killing people by draining their blood so that he can stay alive. Or rats and chickens when humans aren't convenient. Cruise is just the opposite, and eventually they clash. One of the victims is the mother of Kirsten Dunst's character, and the 12-yr-old is "injected" and she becomes a vampire also. The film covers approx. 200 years of Pitt's vampire life, as it is being told to Christian Slater, thus the "interview" in the film's title. Most of the "flashback" is in Rice's hometown, NewOrleans, from about 1790 to the 1990s. But some of it also is set in Paris as Pitt's character travels the world to find others like himself.
I'm glad I saw this film, and it held my interest. Still, it is not my favorite kind of film. Kirsten Dunst was wonderful as the mini-vampire, a role much better suited to her talents then the current "Bring It On" where she plays a teenage cheerleader.
Brad Pitt and Stephen Rea (who has a supporting role) are the only ones that really fit. Kirsten doesn't seem to fulfill what Claudia's part demands when talking about her acting, but physically she's perfect (she's really pretty, like a doll!). Christian Slater passes, but... RIVER!!!! :( Tom Cruise, in spite of his efforts (which we appreciate), *can't* be Lestat, although he made us forget that he was Tom, for some moments. But the worst is yet to come: ANTONIO BANDERAS. How to start "critizicing constructively"?... Jim Carrey would have been better as Armand. To make it clear- when you see Antonio, do you think "he's a Botticelli angel" (as everybody describes Armand) or "he's a Macho Latino" (as everybody describes Antonio)? And when you see Antonio, do you think he's 17 years old (seeming age of Armand)? Besides, Armand's the one whose reputation's most ruined here... we mean, in the novels, Armand does NOT act in the theatre, he's NOT, like, 'hysteric', he's NOT evil and he stays with Louis (for some time, because then he leaves him :( )Armand's the victim, not the 'victimary'! In short- who made the screenplay did not read the book. Highlights- Claudia's transformation scene, Dante Ferreti's artistic direction, and... Dante Ferreti's artistic direction.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Vampires don't give interviews. At least, vampires in their traditional
Transylvanian form don't. Imagine Count Dracula in one of those old
Hammer horrors going off to hold a press conference with someone from
the Daily Mail or the BBC. The title of "Interview with the Vampire",
therefore, suggests that it will be a vampire story with a modern
setting, perhaps something like "The Hunger".
In fact, although the film opens in modern-day San Francisco, it is not as modern as its title might suggest. It starts with a man named Louis being interviewed by a reporter named Daniel Malloy. Louis claims to have been born in Louisiana in the late eighteenth century and to have been converted to vampirism by the vampire Lestat in 1791. The film then chronicles the adventures of Louis, Lestat and a young girl named Claudia, whom they also transform into a vampire, over the next two centuries, starting in the New Orleans of the 1790s, passing through the Paris of the 1870s and ending up in the America of the late twentieth century.
In the course of the film we learn several interesting facts about vampires. They are, apparently, ageless, and remain the age they were when the first became a vampire. Thus Claudia still has the outward appearance of an nine-year-old girl even when, by rights, she should be in her eighties, and Louis looks remarkably well preserved for a two-hundred-and-twentysomething. "Ageless", however, does not necessarily mean "immortal", and there are in fact various ways of killing them besides the traditional stake-though-the-heart method, notably exposing them to direct sunlight. We also learn that vampires need blood to survive; animal blood will do, but they far prefer human blood. Louis (much to Lestat's contempt) initially has a conscience about killing humans, but eventually gives in and kills his housemaid. As for Claudia, she is a bloodthirsty little monster from the start.
There is another difference between "Interview with the Vampire" and those old Hammer films, quite apart from its protagonist's willingness to speak to the press. Hammer films had their faults, but at least they had a strong sense of morality. The vampires were the bad guys and those humans like Van Helsing who were brave enough to stand up to them were the good guys. There is none of that in "Interview". Humans do not really play much part in the story, except as victims. Apart from Louis' brief struggle with his conscience, morals do not play much of a role either. Vampires kill humans, and that is that. It is this very amorality which is the reason why (or, more precisely, one of the reasons why) this film is so difficult to like. Certainly, the vampires suffer from enough emotional angst to keep a regiment of agony aunts busy on a full-time basis, but it is hard to sympathise with the emotional problems of creatures who regard the entire human race simply as a convenient source of tasty nourishment.
Rather surprisingly, the best acting comes from the then child star Kirsten Dunst, twelve at the time of filming, who gives a very mature and assured performance as Claudia. Indeed, it was a much more mature and adult performance than many of those which Kirsten has given since she became an adult- and certainly better than those given by her adult co-stars in this film.
For someone regarded as one of the biggest names in Hollywood, Brad Pitt has appeared in a depressingly large number of indifferent or downright bad films ("A River Runs Through It", "The Devil's Own", "Ocean's Twelve", "Mr and Mrs Smith", etc). "Interview with the Vampire" is another to add to this catalogue, although I have to say that he was better here than Tom Cruise, an actor whose acting varies even more alarmingly between the sublime, the adequate and the ridiculous. Cruise's hilariously over-the-top performance as Lestat must count as one of his worst. The script is generally pretty cheesy, but it is normally Cruise who gets the purest specimens of over-ripe Gorgonzola. ("Whining coward of a vampire that prowls the night killing rats and poodles; you could have finished us both"). To describe this sort of dialogue as melodramatic would be to wrong the writers of melodramas.
Indeed, there is much about the whole film that could be described as hilariously over the top. Like a number of other reviewers I was struck by the obvious homo-erotic overtones to the relationship between Louis and Lestat, especially as Tom Cruise seemed to be doing his best to milk this aspect as much as he could. More disturbing were the overtones to the relationship between Louis and Claudia. Their feelings for one another seemed to verge on paedophilia, and the mutual dislike between Claudia and Lestat to be rooted in sexual jealousy.
The tone of the entire film is one of swooningly camp Grand Guignol, with blood being spilt by the bucketful. The worst, and silliest, part came during the scenes set in Paris, where Louis and Claudia come across a coven of theatrical vampires who specialise in dispatching their human victims under cover of a theatrical performance, without any of their audience realising what is going on. It was at this point that I realised that, for all Neil Jordan's arty direction, the film had abandoned any claim to be taken seriously and had turned into little more than a video nasty with pretensions. 4/10
I was suckered into renting this because it looked like a horror. Boy was I wrong. I haven't read any of Anne Rice's books, and after the before-the-movie featurette where she told us that she has never been happier with a movie, I don't think I'm ever gonna. This movie is a homo-erotic, romantic chick-flick that happens to have fangs. It's definatley one for the girls- more hunky actors that my sister likes than you can shake a stick at, and not nearly enough bloodletting. Antonio Banderas is a bad-ass as always, unfortunatley he is criminally underused (his name is there on the box, I spent the first 2/3's of the movie thinking "To blazes with this chick-flickery, when's Antonio going to arrive on the scene?") and Kirsten Dunst is surprisingly good as a little kid vampire (h er performance was actually stonger than Cruise's and Pitt's). I don't think I'd reccomend this movie to anyone who isn't a 12-14 year old female gothic poet wannabe.
The film is visually just pretty: beautiful costumes,handsome actors, etc. What's more, acting is very good, especially Tom Cruise's (I must admit that, although I don't like him). The plot is original and some people would like it. I didn't. I just didn't find the story interesting, it makes no sense for me: the fact that vampires do exist and drink human blood - I could accept it, reluctantly though,if it led to some conclusions, answered some difficult questions or, as simple as that, was interesting. But it doesn't. It is just another unnecessary expensive "movie about nothing". (Sorry for the language mistakes, actually, I don't speak English very well ;-/)
|Page 15 of 40:||               |
|Newsgroup reviews||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Plot keywords||Main details||Your user reviews|
|Your vote history|