When Billy returns from reform school he has to attend a different high school at the other side of town. He tries to start with a clean slate but his old rival doesn't make it easy on him ... See full summary »
Against the backdrop of a gloomy San Francisco, the nearly two-century-old vampire, Louis de Pointe du Lac, recounts the unbelievable story of his eternal transformation and a life worse than death to the sceptic reporter, Daniel Molloy. Spanning two hundred years of cruel betrayals, extreme solitude, and unquenched thirst, Louis' grimly fascinating tale pivots around his perpetually regrettable decision to embrace the dictatorship of blood, and, above all, his maker: the seductive blonde aristocrat of death, Lestat de Lioncourt. Is Louis' mystical epic of bloodshed genuine? Is this, indeed, an interview with a vampire?Written by
Louis tells his interviewer that he saw the sun rise for the first time in 200 years when he watched his first movie. It is implied that Louis saw the movie when it was new, or almost new, in the late 1920s, when he had been a vampire for less than 140 years. See more »
So you want me to tell you the story of my life?
See more »
Reportedly, in original screenings of the film there was extra footage in the scene where Louis finds the burnt bodies of Madeleine and Claudia. In this version, after the bodies crumple to ashes, Louis takes Madeleine's locket that has the picture of the little girl who resembles Claudia. See more »
I, like Anne Rice, was initially dismayed that Tom Cruise had been cast as Lestat. But when I saw the film, I had to admit that he absolutely nailed the role. I had always thought of Cruise as a pretty boy, and not really a serious actor, especially since he failed in his attempt at a Streepian accent in "Far and Away". However, he perfectly portrayed Lestat for what he is, a monster with a monstrous ego. I think that this was the first film I had seen with Brad Pitt, followed shortly by "Legends of the Fall" so to me his acting credentials were impeccable, in spite of my female friends swooning over him. The rest of the cast was excellent as well, with the only minor quibble that Antonio Banderas was too old for the part of Armand. Kirsten Dunst was adorably evil. The cinematography was beautiful, considering that almost all of the film (of course) takes place at night. One note on the supposed "homo-eroticism" in the film. I have the advantage, having read Rice's books, so here is the deal on that. In Rice's world, the vampires are absolutely sexless. Therefore, gender has no meaning to them. When a vampire loves another, or a mortal, it is truly from the heart, as no sexuality of any kind ever enters into it. The only thing to them that is close, is the kill. Killing is highly "erotic" to vampires. However, this too is really asexual, and so again, gender has no bearing on the eroticism of the kill. I think that some elements of this, which apparently came across as homo-eroticism, were included in the screenplay just to emphasize how different, how non-human, that vampires are.
249 of 293 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this