Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips
Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 9 of 42: [Prev][4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [Next]
Index 413 reviews in total 

Wrong casting bites

Author: PrometheusTree64 from The Mists of Time
21 June 2013

The vampire-crowd are so thirsty for material that they often wind up reviewing the subject more than the actual film.

So here are my feelings: Anne Rice was right to have initially complained, publicly and bitterly, about the casting of Tom Cruise as LeStat -- and why she took back such criticism as the film was being released theatrically, I'll never understand.

I have nothing against Mr. Cruise, but he's all wrong -- in fact, terrible -- in the film. And Brad Pitt, duller and flatter than I'm accustomed to seeing him, is at least a tad better as Louis... But if you HAD to cast these two actors in "...Vampire", they're playing each others' parts!: Pitt would have been far better as LeStat than Tom. (As would several other stars)... I was hoping for a kind of "La Jetee" feel to the empty netherworld the story was attempting to portray, but these actors, especially Tom, simply weren't the ones).

The film is directed with some style, but the wrong casting keeps the movie a bit shrill and at arm's length the entire time.

A missed opportunity, nearly-ruined by Hollywood...

Was the above review useful to you?

Enthralling vampire/drama film

8/10
Author: KineticSeoul from United States
23 April 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This is what dramatic vampire movies should be. Of course vampires are not real but this one goes in a direction and crafted in a way where it actually makes it seem like it can be possible. Brat Pitt and Tom Cruise make a excellent duo, well at least to watch. And their physical appearance and acting really fit the roles of vampires almost flawlessly. Especially Tom Cruise as the vampire Lestat who is the show stealer in this movie. Although he is the vicious and selfish character that has a strong sense of vanity. But between the two his character is just more entertaining to watch and interesting. I guess because of his nature and mystery behind him or like most villains or anti-heroes they just know what they want. But this movie is basically a Brat Pitt film and his character is the main protagonist named Louis who gets turned into a vampire by Lestat. He is basically the emo character that whimper, sob and complains but sits back and basically does nothing most of the way through. And it's basically his melancholic journey after being turned into a vampire, which is actually enthralling to watch because of his surroundings. This is based on Anne Rice's first vampire novel and although I haven't read any of her books yet. I think this film did a good job of capturing the dark atmosphere. This is a well crafted and dark vampire movie that captures the essence of vampires and is a entertaining and interesting watch. And thanks to the two main actors performances this movie still stands out as a popular vampire movie and it's a shame there wasn't any sequels with the same cast. Unlike the "Twilight" saga which should be forgotten.

8.6/10

Was the above review useful to you?

pictorial

Author: Armand from Romania
20 December 2012

image is all in this case. more important than script. support of performance. key of action. heart of story. a huge picture about a strange community. each color as line of seductive drawing. each nuance as seed of impressive atmosphere. nothing else. only map of a land like state of soul. Tom Cruise in his ordinary precise style does a realistic character - game of lights and shadows. Brad Pitt - victim of two worlds. Kristin Dunst - beautiful doll in a fascinating role. a huge arena more than an adaptation. beginning of vampire fashion, a smart movie with flavor of ancient period, Gothic and baroque, web of senses and slice of fairy tale.

Was the above review useful to you?

"I'm Going To Give You The Choice, I Never Had!"

7/10
Author: gwnightscream from United States
25 June 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Kirsten Dunst, Antonio Banderas and Christian Slater star in Neil Jordan's 1994 horror film based on Anne Rice's novel. This begins in San Francisco where we meet 200-year old vampire, Louis (Pitt) who reveals his life-story and his maker, Lestat (Cruise) to reporter, Malloy (Slater). Dunst (Spider-Man) plays Claudia, a young orphan girl who becomes a spoiled vampire created by Lestat and Louis and Banderas (Desperado) plays vampire, Armand. Cruise and Pitt are terrific in this, Stan Winston's make-up effects are great as well as Elliot Goldenthal's score. This is a great vampire film with chilling and dramatic moments. I highly recommend it for any fan of the genre.

Was the above review useful to you?

passionate blood !

10/10
Author: amethystwings32 from United States
19 May 2012

I love this movie, based on the book by Anne Rice. I may have seen it a lot , but it is still one of my favorites! Tom Cruise was the best Lestat by far with his intense passion and fiery anger ! He captured the essence of the character ,and then there was Louis the vampire with humanity. Resenting the dark gift that was bestowed upon him. So in a way they balanced each other out! In this turn of the

century vampire movie. Of vampires who are trying to find themselves, in society! Surviving on the

nectar of life. In order to find salvation, but there is a lot of sacrifice. Betrayal , hate and love. Along the way, lurking in darkness like phantoms in the night. But there was one factor who tried to tear them a part besides Lestat's insanity ! And that was Claudia a sadistic spoiled brat, who wanted Louis all for herself ! A seriously twisted triangle! But the one character I feel sorry for the most in someways was Armand the under estimated vampire in this dark tale!

Was the above review useful to you?

Draining, pun intended

7/10
Author: abgkasjlkasjla from Denmark
28 April 2012

After losing his wife and child, Louis(Pitt, a far too reactive(as opposed to one who takes charge, and causes things to happen... he just goes with what occurs), and thus uninteresting lead) risks everything, and is found and turned by old vampire(and the ways thereof are endowed with the eroticism seen in other takes on this mythical creature) Lestat(Cruise, looking somewhat less effeminate than he does in Legend with golden locks), who laughs at the formers attempts to maintain his humanity, refusing to kill to feed(going after rats and poodles instead). One night, they turn a pre-teen girl, Claudia(Dunst, in her best performance this side of Melancholia... stunning), who threatens their peaceful coexistence(they're actually not unlike an old married couple, with constant bickering) upside down, with her lack of discipline and eventual yearning to grow up, to develop into a woman. I've now tried to watch this a few times, and each time the same thing happens: around the middle, I stop caring. Is it that the latter half is less compelling than the first? I really don't believe so. That's actually when stuff goes down. It's just too Gothic and vague(I can barely describe the characters so that one can tell them apart) for my tastes, and that doesn't mean that it will be for everyone. And don't get me wrong, this is a brilliantly acted piece. I couldn't point you to anyone in this who does less than excellent(the one who comes closest might be Slater... don't worry, he's not in it much). It's filmed and edited gorgeously. There are some deep, inspired notions explored through the seemingly endless life(at least 200 years, as is revealed very early on), the eternal youth, and the flirtation between life and death, from both those who have been bitten and those who have not. I haven't read the novel(or any other Rice), and can draw no comparisons. There is a lot of bloody, disturbing, brutal and violent content, some strong sexuality and a little full female nudity in this. I recommend this to anyone who wants a mature look at the nocturnal dweller. 7/10

Was the above review useful to you?

Never drink from the dead!

10/10
Author: Davyd Teather from North Vancouver, BC, Canada
21 April 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Interview with the vampire is easily one of the best vampire movies that have been in the whole history of modern cinema. It focuses on a 200 year old vampire who is being interviewed by a young journalist and is chronicling his whole life from before he became a vampire to the present day. This movie is different from the twilight movies. Unlike twilight, the vampires in this movie cannot survive in sunlight. It actually stays true to the mythology of vampires. Not that I did not like twilight which i did. I just think this movie is better. Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt and Kirsten Dunst are a very good team. The gore and blood is very graphic and very realistic. The scene I especially liked is when Louis goes to the theatre and burns the vampires out of revenge for Claudias murder. This is one movie not to be missed.

Was the above review useful to you?

Cruise and Pitt make it a fun journey

8/10
Author: WeWatchedAMovie Mike from United States
12 March 2012

Dreary and dark and still fun to watch. I think that's the key here when saying Tom Cruise was the wrong choice... it may have been to over dramatic in the boring way without him. With Cruise, it was over dramatic in a nice, fun way. For all it's faults, the film is entrancing because of the amazing atmosphere, detailed sets, and charisma of the leading actors. They do a little bit too much harping on the same subjects over and over again, or maybe its just the screen writing being too repetitive in how they explain Pitt's characters constant inner struggles. The ending also feels out of place and forced, however, it's not enough to ruin an otherwise interesting watch.

Was the above review useful to you?

An Underrated Masterpiece of Horror ...

9/10
Author: ElMaruecan82 from France
30 January 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

"Interview with the Vampire", adapted from Anne Rice's novel, approaches horror like "The Godfather" for the gangster genre by plunging us in the most intimate depths of a scary underworld, to understand the complexity of three-dimensional characters beyond an apparent evilness. Neil Jordan's film, one of the best of the prolific 1994 year, is a harrowing journey into a perpetual darkness, whether it lies in the profound majesty of a night sky or in the heart of a creature that traded the admiration of a beautiful sunshine for the poisoned gift of immortality.

As the title indicates, the narrative consists on an interview between a journalist, Daniel (Christian Slater) and an affable and elegant vampire, Louis (Brad Pitt) who tells the story of his life which, like for every vampire, starts in human form. Louis grew up in New Orleans in the eighteenth century where he became a rich plantation owner and slave master at 25, which equals being 40 today. The premature death of his wife at childbirth made him lose the will for life, an easy prey for a vampire named Lestat (Tom Cruise). Through Daniel's naive questions, the film intelligently introduces our POV allowing Louis to sweep off all the clichés about Transylvania and crosses …or to discuss them. We rapidly understand that "Interview' is a mature and innovative film.

The process of vampire-conception is one of the film's many novelties. When Lestat bites Louis' neck, he gives him the 'choice he didn't have', a repeated line that echoes in my mind, the 'offer one couldn't refuse' from "The Godfather", a sort of cynical invitation to die or to become a vampire. Louis was already dead by human standards, so his soul could find relief only through non-existence or new-existence, and since survival is the strongest of all the instincts, Louis chooses to become a vampire by sucking the blood of Lestat, who therefore becomes a fatherly mentor, and being as 'young' as Louis, a friend and roommate.

Having a couple is another originality introduced by the film and quite necessary because it opens a gate for insightful discussions through Louis' initiation in the vampire world. His first learning is how to kill, something he's extremely reluctant to commit, having still an ounce of humanity in his heart. The life of vampires oscillates between two realities, the beauty of the world in night that seems even more lively and fascinating, an aspect transcended by a dazzling cinematography, and there is the ugliness of their instinct that can only depends its survival on killing lives. Vampires are necessarily evils, and this poisons Louis's conscience, he who shouts to Lestat that he sentenced him to hell.

The killing scenes create an unsettling mix of gruesomeness and sensuality sublimated by the beautiful period setting, reminding Hitchcock's motto: to shoot murders like love scenes and vice versa. There is indeed something strangely sensual going between the reserved Louis and the flamboyant Lestat culminating when Louis bites the neck of a little orphan who lost her mother during the plague, and Lestat saves her by giving his blood. Little Claudia is reborn through a symbolic process that involved the two vampires.

Claudia genuinely loves Louis while she's educated by Lestat, and unlike Louis, she didn't have time to be a human and plenty enough to become a ruthless killer. The film features a long sequence where Claudia's talent hidden behind a mask of cuteness is revealed with a nice touch of black comedy. Without giving away obvious sexual undertones, there is no way not to see them as a family, making the friendship between Louis and Lestat ambiguous and between Louis and Claudia sort of incestuous, especially since she had the maturity of a young woman trapped in a child's body. The plurality of characters provides more insightful questions about the vampire's conditions and their roots.

Indeed, while Louis' torments were more about what was wrong or right, about the necessity of killing, and being evil despite conscience, Claudia discovers in a pivotal scene set some decades after, that she will never be desired like a woman. Louis wanted to be good despite his nature, Claudia to be desired. Kirsten Dunst delivers one of the greatest child performances on an Oscar worthy level. The film takes a sort of mythological turn when they both plot against their own creator. Louis, in a sort of Oedipian movie, kills his own 'father' to become Claudia's only father, so she can live in an incestuous symbiosis with her. Claudia makes him more human and he makes her more desired.

The film's third act illustrates the impossibility for this relationship to be maintained when the two vampires go to discover their roots, in Paris. They are disappointed by the level of buffoonish decadence striking this underworld. Armand, the leader, played by Antonio Banderas feels in Louis, an innocence absent in the other vampires, and wants to keep him with, this confirms the initial sexual undertones of the Louis and Lestat duo, creating a dramatic love triangle, encouraging Claudia to find another kind of love, a mother, but the love will be shortcut, as she'll get lynched by the vampire posse, to pay for Lestat's death.

The film ends with a weight in Louis' heart which is less a failure than a relieving deception. Instead of looking at the roots, Louis, freed from Claudia's love and Lestat's tutorship, becomes the vampire his own way, finding catharsis through cinema. The deception in Louis' heart is nothing compared to the journalist who doesn't understand how Louis didn't measure the extent of his power. Louis' brutal reaction, grabbing him to the ceiling with his first monstrous shot is the noblest thing he ever did, sparing a life so it measures the true value of its mortality.

Unfortunately, the journalist will probably have to learn the lesson the hard way, through Lestat and ... the infamous choice he never had ….

Was the above review useful to you?

Great Production and Show

8/10
Author: pc95 from San Diego
25 November 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

One of the better movies of the 90's, I remember really enjoying "Interview with the Vampire" in the theater,1994. It was extremely hyped at the time with a young Brad Pitt and Cruise in one of his better roles. Thankfully the movie holds on to a lot of what makes it entertaining and great over 17 years later now. Neil Jordan directed a stage-like performance and atmosphere complete with outstanding music, sets, and costuming backing up a devilishly good script apparent thanks to screenplay/author Anne Rice. It stands out imo as one of the best modern vampire movies made in the last 30 years. The leading actors are all enjoyable, and there's a satirical and witty look at the life and history of vampires - especially that of Louie - Brad Pitt's character, the narrator. While the ending might be a little bit hokey, the voyage of the movie easily makes up for it. Of note, Kirstin Dunst has several great scenes in her breakout role. Strongly Recommended

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 9 of 42: [Prev][4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history