Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 9 of 40: [Prev][4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [Next]
Index 394 reviews in total 

Great cast, and it's just great to see vampires kill and maim, whatever happened to cool vampires?

Author: (macabre-6) from Norway
22 January 2012

Remember when vampires actually were cool, and not just a bunch of whining pretty boys, okay, the vampires in this movie are all good looking, and they do complain and act gloomy, but then they kill people and one of them even cut off heads and people with a scythe as well, there's a fair amount of blood and gore in the movie, which I certainly appreciate, but it's not a horror movie, the tone shifts from drama to some dark comedy to scenes of brutality, but these shifts work and don't seem to jarring. Tom Cruise may get top billing, and he is excellent, but this is Brad Pitt's character Louis's story, he gets the most screen time, he's the one we follow throughout the movie, Kirsten Dunst also appears in the movie, she's good as well but her character sometimes comes off as a bit of a brat, there's also some strange, slightly sinister stuff they toy around with, seemingly, despite her child-like appearance she is considerable older, this is of course a well known excuse often seen in anime to play around with some unseemly stuff, the movie skips around it, but thankfully never goes for that. The story is good, granted, not a whole lot of stuff happens, but the actors are so good, they keep you invested in the plot, there are some surprises throughout that are genuinely...well, surprising, shocking even, and I won't spoil them. There are just a few minor unanswered questions after it's all over, but you don't feel annoyed, it's a satisfying movie, if you're one of those who believe Tom Cruise is gay, then you're probably going to pay extra attention to some scenes, to be fair he doesn't only go after boys, but women as well. doesn't matter, he's a good actor, and he is really good here. I liked the movie, when one character seems to be killed off, the movie slips a little, but then you get an awesome revenge scene later on. Interview with a Vampire is a good vampire movie, it made me wish they could still make great vampire movies.

Was the above review useful to you?

Great Production and Show

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?

Good moovie

Author: haraldkristjan-reemets from Estonia
10 November 2011

I think that this movie was quite easy to watch and the acting of Tom Cruise was just fabulous. The operator work was not good because without description I could not understand where the story was. I think that the screenplay was not quite original. Everyone who likes vampire movies and are not scared of horrifying scenes, that is the perfect movie. I could think of many movies that have just very fake vampires. Because of Brad Pitt playing as a vampire (as a young movie viewer I have not saan Brad Pitt in antiquity roles) it was great and he did great in antiquity role. I am watching Dracula 1992 tonight so I would have a great opportunity to compare two vampire movies what are made in almost same time.

Was the above review useful to you?

Tom Cruise And Brad Pitt Are Lestat And Louis

Author: Desertman84 from United States
9 October 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles is a drama and horror film.It was based on the 1976 novel Interview with the Vampire by Anne Rice.

The film stars Tom Cruise,Brad Pitt, and Kirsten Dunst, with Antonio Banderas and Stephen Rea.It was directed by Neil Jordan.It focuses on the story of Lestat,played by Tom Cruise; and Louis,played by Brad Pitt.It begins with Louis' transformation into a vampire by Lestat;their time together, and their turning of a twelve year old Creole girl, Claudia, played by a young Kirsten Dunst,into a vampire.The narrative is framed by a present day interview,in which Louis tells his story to a San Francisco reporter,played by Christian Slater.

The movie's screenplay was great as vampires were portrayed as human beings instead of blood-sucking creatures.Cruise,Pitt and Dunst provided great performance in their roles as Lestat,Louis and Claudia respectively.The movie was interesting from beginning to end. The direction was superb as well.Finally,Pitt's portrayal of Louis stood out in the film as we get to sympathize with a person who was an unwilling vampire.It was a great story as well.Highly recommended for people who loves horror and entertaining films.

Was the above review useful to you?

Death is no respecter of age.

Author: Spikeopath from United Kingdom
8 October 2011

Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles is directed by Neil Jordan and written by Anne Rice (novel & screenplay). It stars Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Antonio Banderas, Kirsten Dunst, Stephen Rea and Christian Slater. Music is by Elliot Goldenthal and cinematography by Philippe Rousselot.

Modern day San Francisco and reporter Daniel Malloy (Slater) is interviewing a man named Louis de Pointe du Lac, who claims to be a centuries old vampire……..


It's a completely different vampire movie! Certainly it's not conventional, this is told from the vampire's point of view, we the audience are observing the lifestyle of the undead, hey they have issues and angst too. It's a wonderfully dreamy, visually stunning, movie, the pace is, shall we say, sedate? And it's very rarely scary. However, it's a film that pays dividends on repeat viewings once there's an awareness of what type of film it is. This can be said of the casting as well, where two of Hollywood's then biggest stars, Cruise and Pitt, sprout fangs, wear make up, suck blood and ponce about like dandy fops. It's only really on repeat viewings that it proves to be astute casting, especially Cruise, who not only didn't have the trust of story creator Anne Rice, but many of his hardened fans were casting doubts on him playing such a role. Rice, upon viewing the finished film, and after wanting Julian Sands for the role of Lestat de Lioncourt, ate humble pie and wrote Cruise a letter of apology and praise of his performance.

I've drained you to the point of death. If I leave you here, you die. Or you can be young always, my friend, as we are now, but you must tell me: will you come or no?

Jordan was a great choice of director, his work on the fantasy/fairytale/nightmare that is The Company of Wolves made him the ideal choice. Here armed with about fifty five more million dollars! Jordan crafts a near homo-erotic tale and surrounds it with Gothic splendour. The money didn't just go on the cast, the set designs are sights for sore eyes, from period houses to underground catacombs, the production design is first rate and was rightly nominated for an Academy Award for Art Direction/Set Decoration (it lost out to The Madness of King George). As a story the film remains interesting because new characters are introduced into the undead world and that brings about in-fighting and shifts in tone. Thankfully the two most important characters in this factor get fine performances from the actors, firstly young Kirsten Dunst dominates her scenes like an old pro, no surprise that it would prove to be a career starter for her that shows no sign of coming to a close. And secondly is Antonio Banderas, who is utterly beguiling and elegant as the leader of a Paris vampire troupe. Elsewhere, Rea makes an effective top hatted vampire luvvy, and Slater (stepping in when River Phoenix sadly died) competently portrays the "in awe" reporter for the present day scenes.

The lavish visuals do tend to lend the film towards being style over substance, particularly as the film is 15/20 minutes too long. But it remains a fascinating flip-flop of a vampire movie, and one that's expertly acted as well. 8/10

Was the above review useful to you?

A well written story about a mans undead life throughout the centuries.

Author: moert-161-802237 from Sweden
15 September 2011

The story of Louis, a man tired of life itself who is given an opportunity to embrace it, to become an undead.

The story is well written, the casting is superb, and the setting is just what I am looking for in this kind of a movie! But there's one thing I just have trouble with processing. When I watch this kind of a movie, I wan't to feel with the characters, I wan't to understand their decisions and how they keep on going. This movie falls kind of flat on that point. While it actually is a really good movie, it doesn't make me want more. It is good for what it is, and makes two good spent hours.

Was the above review useful to you?

As good a book-to-movie adaptation as I've ever seen.

Author: jessica_elgersma from United States
24 August 2011

As a fan of Anne Rice's novel I was worried that the movie was going to suck, especially when I heard that Tom Cruise had been cast as Lestat and Brad Pitt as Louis. However, I was quite happily proved wrong. Tom Cruise had a brilliant portrayal of Lestat as a dark, reckless and even at times comedic character. Brad Pitt and Antonio Banderas did well too, but I have special praise for Kirsten Dunst as Claudia. She was at once charmingly innocent, beautiful and spine-chillingly creepy. The two-hour run time was enough to tell the story in without it being rushed, and the costumes were quite good. My only complaint is that I didn't really like the makeup, it looked quite fake and like they had powder on their faces rather than being genuinely pale. However, all in all, Interview with the Vampire is well worth your time.

Was the above review useful to you?

Sadness of the vampire

Author: hall895 from New Jersey
7 July 2011

Maybe the vampire life isn't all it's cracked up to be. The chance to live forever, that's a good deal right? But that deal comes, of course, with complications. Foremost among them being the need to kill. This is something Louis never really comes to grips with. Louis has been a vampire for 200 years. As we meet him, in modern-day San Francisco, he is about to tell his story to a reporter. And what a story it is. But it's a story tinged with melancholy and sadness. Some may embrace the vampire life. Louis though mourns the life he once had, the humanity he long ago lost.

It all began in Louisiana in 1791. Mourning the loss of his wife and newborn child Louis just wants to be put out of his misery, to die. Instead, when he crosses paths with the vampire Lestat, he is born to a new eternal life. And immediately regrets it. Lestat more or less embraces his vampire existence. Louis never does. He soon finds himself feeding on the blood of rats. Better that Louis thinks than taking human life. But eventually Louis will have to accept what it is that he has become. He may accept it but he doesn't have to like it. This is one morose vampire. Perhaps what he needs is a companion to shake him from his doldrums. So Lestat gives him one. A child, Claudia. A young girl turned vampire. Louis loves Claudia and protects her. Not that she initially seems to need much in the way of protection. This girl's a killer, she loves the taste of blood. But what happens when she realizes she will never grow old? Will she accept her eternal childhood? No, she will not. And the ramifications for the happy little vampire family of Lestat, Louis and Claudia will be severe.

This is a movie with a dark, gloomy feel to it. Necessarily the story unfolds entirely in the nighttime which only adds to the foreboding darkness. The vampire life we see here is anything but glamorous. As modern-day Louis tells his centuries-long story it is obvious he does not feel he really lives. He simply survives. When he had Claudia to love things were better but that story never seemed destined for a happy ending. Ultimately Louis is a lonely man, walking the Earth, feeding on those who cross his path and cursing the dark "gift" he was given. Brad Pitt does an excellent job in the role of Louis, capturing all the melancholy, the weight of 200 dark years. As Lestat, Tom Cruise gets a much more flamboyant part to play and he does very well with it, taking the opportunity to chew some scenery but also doing some notably fine acting. Antonio Banderas, who pops up as a mysterious figure late in the proceedings, and Christian Slater, playing the reporter to whom Louis unburdens himself, both turn in good performances. With all the gloominess the film could use a lighter touch here and there and Stephen Rea plays a character who provides a few fleeting moments of levity. But there's a darkness in that character too. The vampire life is not one of fun and games. Perhaps the best performance in the film comes from young Kirsten Dunst playing Claudia. She's a real scene-stealer. Claudia's a woman, with decades of life experiences, trapped in a child's body. She has a maturity which belies her appearance and the actress playing that part had to show that same quality of maturity beyond her years. Dunst does so wonderfully. There's a lot of life that has been lived behind Claudia's young eyes and Dunst captures the essence of the eternal child perfectly. But as good as Dunst and Cruise and all the rest may be it's really Pitt's movie to carry. This is Louis's story. And it will prove to be a rather fascinating story indeed. Louis may not embrace his vampire life but you can definitely embrace this very entertaining movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

Almost elegiac

Author: Neil Welch from United Kingdom
24 February 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I could never get on with Anne Rice's novels, but I quite enjoyed this film adaptation. It takes a leisurely approach towards relating the events of Louis (Brad Pitt)'s life (or, rather, un-life) from the time he is vampirised in 1800s Lousiana to the present day, as related to scribe Christian Bale.

Central to this is Lestat (Tom Cruise) the louche vampire who sets Louis on his path, and pops up from time to time over the years. Tom Cruise's casting, so far out of type, was a sensation at the time, but he is very good. However, he is not the only one - Antonio Banderas, Stephen Rea and, especially, 11 year old Kirsten Dunst in her breakthrough role are all excellent, too.

There is sufficient horror for horror fans, but this is essentially a character piece. The plot is a straightforward linear narrative, simply recounting the episodes in Louis' life. The film is handsomely mounted with some well-staged set pieces but comes perilously close to outstaying its welcome - perhaps it is slightly more leisurely than it needs to be.

Was the above review useful to you?

Interview With The Vampire (aka "Claudia's Two Dads")

Author: s k from United States
20 August 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

(Question) How can you top a homo-erotic--pedophilia--vampire--melodrama?

(Answer) You can't.

But not because it's so good. And not because it's so bad, either.

You can't top it because it emanates from a place all its own. There's no nicely paved road on which to attempt to ascend its pinnacle. It depicts pure evil. But not a Hitler sort of evil. The most human sort of evil.

Halfway through what seemed like a 10 hour movie I found myself asking the question: Why am I still watching this? "Locked together in hatred", says Claudia to Louis. That pretty much sums up my relationship with this film. The perverse intimate details portrayed by this film were so primordial that it was as if they should not be shown or seen. Yet once I started watching I simply could not stop.

Interview With The Vampire is not the predigested teeniebopper Buffy The Vampire Slayer fare. Or even True Blood. It penetrates levels of consciousness in spite of some rather poor performances by both Pitt and Cruise. It's almost as if their presence doesn't even matter -- that's how powerful this film -- and Kirsten Dunst's performance -- is. Clearly...I.W.T.V. is not for everyone. I'm not even sure it's for me. But given the opportunity to choose to see it or not, and knowing what I now know about it, I would definitely choose the former.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 9 of 40: [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 Ratings Awards
Newsgroup reviews External reviews Parents Guide
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history