Interview with the Vampire (1994)

Good movie, but best of all time? Hardly . . .

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

Interview With The Vampire : The Vampire Chronicles3 Out Of 5Interview With The Vampire : The Vampire Chronicles is an interesting take on one's usual vampire tale, especially since it focuses less on the characteristics of it and more on the revenge aspect of it. The chemistry among the characters is acted out and written brilliantly especially in its first two acts where diplomacy brews among them which grows into a behemoth rage of vengeance and spirals out its plot with an eccentric push. It is rich on technical aspects like costume design, art design, editing and sound department. The script is not as smart as the makers think but it surely is gripping enough to keep the audience engaged and invested in it. Addition to that, the makers uses their star power wisely and draws in most of the attention from it.Anne Rice; the writer, has done an amazing work on creating a high pitched tensed drama among its three dimensional characters where Neil Jordan; the director, is merely supporting her on its execution where he should have been more expressive and accurate on his vision. The performance is objective is utterly satisfied by the protagonist Brad Pitt and his supporting cast Tom Cruise, Kirsten Dunst and Antonio Banderas. Interview With The Vampire : The Vampire Chronicles is a thought-provoking but an over-stretched interview which may not be as nutrient but is surely juicy.

Anne Rice has written a real good book. But as a universal dilemma of book stories being adapted into the screen, there's always the danger of interpretation and it will either by abhorred or adored by those who read the novel. Such is the case with this film because in some parts , it was mellow acting and one can't help but miss the intense fear when reading it. The performances of Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise and the young Kirsten Dunst borders on the forgettable for I can not recall a scène that has left its imprints on me. Watch it for the reason that you might be asking yourself the same question, what is the purpose of an eternal life?

"Interview with the Vampire" is a classic for those who enjoy vampire movies. In this new era of film-making, we have a vampire movie from the early nineties that is so much more than blood and gore, empty fights and the new glam with which they seem to be portraying vampires in films. We have actual living beings (even though they're dead, but you get the point) asking questions about their existence, about God and the Devil, about death. The movie tells us the story of Louis, who is lost in the abyss of depression and, as his final scream asking for help, accepts the bite of a vampire, who promises him to be young and immortal. It's the story of how Louis gets to deal with his new immortal, nocturnal life. But it is also so much more than that. It's how they show Lestat's persuasive side, making a little girl a vampire just so Louis could stay with him; It's how the directors portrayed the era the movie was set in, the costumes, the acting. Everything is put together to create an aesthetically-pleasing movie.However, I first watched "Interview with the Vampire" when I was barely a teenager. At that time, I loved every aspect of it. This movie is very dear to my heart because it introduced me to Anne Rice's books and, after that, I started reading almost all of her Vampire Chronicle's novels. The problem is that I watched it again some time ago, after years of not watching it, and the holes in the plotline and the choice in cast made me cringe so bad that I had to pause the film to think if I should keep watching it.First of all, I have to point out that I'm extremely heartbroken that the directors took away one big part of the plotline: the homoerotic aspect of the series. And by this, I'm not saying that the characters are homosexual, because I know that Anne Rice's vampires are pretty much asexual and without any real carnal desire aside from the desire to actually bite and take blood from their kills. However, throughout all of Anne Rice's books she states clearly that the relationship between Lestat and Louis is one of lovers. Yes, they fight a lot, they don't agree in many topics, but they love each other like nobody else and I feel like this is lost in the movie. This was done to have more acceptability in the media from more closed-minded viewers. Maybe that was the price they had to pay for the movie to be made. Still, I believe that this takes away most of the movie's essence.Another point worth of mentioning is the choice of actors to play the roles of the characters. On the bright side, I cannot leave this review without mentioning how astonishing Tom Cruise's performance is while playing Lestat. Even if they had to put him on boxes, so he could look taller in some scenes, I couldn't ask for a better actor to play this role. He is exactly how I imagine Lestat to be. He plays Lestat's egocentric, mischievous, elegant essence too well for his own good and leaves us wanting more of his appearance in the movie every time he isn't on the screen. That being said, though, I still need to mention something that really bothers me. Armand. If you haven't read the books, you probably don't know what I'm talking about. In the books, Armand is a Russian boy, raised in Italy, who has a fair complexion, red locks and a cherub-like face. He was turned into a vampire when he was about 17 years-old. Now, knowing that, the producers decided it was a good idea to cast Antonio Banderas into Armand's role. It took away absolutely ALL the magic when Louis met Armand, because, while watching the movie, you don't see the cherub-like boy we have in the books, we see and old-looking vampire, with long, straight black hair, saying he is the oldest vampire he knows that is alive. It was hard to accept that. Again, they probably did this to make things easier when selling the movie, because, let's be real, when you think about a super old vampire, full of skills and powers, you certainly don't think about a teen-age-looking redheaded boy.Overall, aside from my fan-minded -rant, "Interview with the Vampire" is a very underrated but magic movie that can open doors to some amazing novels by an amazing author. If you are looking for a movie full of very talented people, with glorious costumes and quotes to live by, I totally suggest you to give "Interview with the Vampire" a try.

I watched this film with no preconception of what this film will be about (except for the obvious) or how good it is and I still somehow felt quite disappointed. As expected, it was a predictable Hollywood popcorn flick. It has its big stars and its pretty effects and that's about it. Though it was interesting how the gay subtext was tackled, other than that the film's script is beyond mediocre. I mean Pitt's role is not really salvageable. That character is beyond insufferable. On the other hand, Kirsten Dunst and Tom Cruise, in substantial roles, did their best to impress.Dunst left me with mixed feelings. She was impressive when she was playing as a youngster version of her role but as her character 'age', I did not see a change that I believe the character should have.Meanwhile, Tom Cruise was more impressive in his role. I mean he have the showiest role after all. It has the right amount of pizazz and motherly touch that his character imbued but it was nothing special. Overall, the film was just painfully OK and everything about leaves you wanting for more as nothing really leaves a big impression. [2.5/5]