Interview mit einem Vampir

Now that some time has passed, Neil Jordon's beautiful work can be watched without obsessing so much over the stars who were involved. 'Interview' is an extravagant assault on the senses, filled with beauty, erotic and graphic violence, and wonderful, at times poetic dialog. To be sure, this is a Hollywood production, but with director Neil Jordon in charge, the film possesses that special "arthouse" film look, with many scenes being too strange and dark to come across as typical Hollywood. Pitt is fine as Louis, the centuries-old vampire who recounts his sad and fascinating history to a nameless "interviewer", played a bit too light by Christian Slater. If you dislike Tom Cruise and his films, as i do, you should not let his participation in the film dissuade you from seeing this; As the sinister Lestat, Cruise is barely recognizable, and gives here, what might be his finest performance. Obviously due to the subject matter, 'Interview' is a relentlessly dark film. There are a few short scenes of daylight in the beginning, until Louis is transformed. Then begins his life of eternal darkness. When I saw this in the theater, the effect of sitting in a darkened room watching a film that takes place entirely at night, really felt strange. Coming out of the theater I felt as though I had been away from the real world for a long time. Jordon's aesthetic vision, supported for once by the huge Hollywood budget, insured that "Interview" looks gorgeous. The plantation that is Louis' first home, and then the Paris apartment are filled with exquisite antiques, ornate furnishings, gold framed mirrors, lace and velvet four-poster beds, etc, transporting the viewer into the 18th and 19th centuries, and lends an extra level of decadence to the lifestyle of these vampires. The costumes as well are breath-taking, and accurate to the time. The finest thing about this production though, is the beautiful, doll-like Claudia, the child-vampire, played by Kirsten Dunst. It is always terrifying and strange when a child is cast in such an evil role. Claudia's thirst for blood exceeds that of Lestat himself, and her total lack of remorse for the people she kills is the most haunting and disturbing thing about this. The approach to her character was very un-Hollywood, thankfully. Anne Rice's book evokes feelings of loneliness and a profound sadness, and those feelings translate well into Jordans film. "Interview With the Vampire" is a very special, and at times superb cinematic delight, that was not ruined by it's over-exposed stars and commercialism. And those that love Gothic horror and period films should see this, and ignore it's Hollywood origins.

Interview with the Vampire is such an unusual horror movie, it stands up incredibly well many years later, it's lavish, decadent and sumptuous. The filming and direction are wonderful, it never fails to impress.

It's a very different style of horror, it has softer tones, and yet it's blood thirsty when needed. The story telling itself is one of the film's major strengths, it's a captivating watch, splitting vampire lust and cravings against a very human element.

Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise are both fantastic, I'd argue it's one of Cruise's best performances, the whole supporting cast are great.

I've watched it many times, I've never once lost interest in it. It's a great watch. 8/10

Someone said that this movie was too cerebral for horror fans who live for drivel like "From Dusk 'Till Dawn", and too much of a horror movie for people who look (or at least pretend to look) for meaning in movies -- pseudo-intellectuals. That person couldn't have been more correct. I'm not a horror fan, I'm not an Anne Rice fan...I'm not even fond of Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, and Antonio Banderas. But Interview With a Vampire was a movie that excelled my expectations.

I refused to see this film for 3 years because I believed it would be what I perceived it to be: glitzy Hollywood garbage geared toward adolescent girls with posters of the 3 main actors all over their walls. I finally broke down and rented it, and I was astonished by the incredible performances delivered, the thrilling dialogue and the way it was delivered by the actors, the scenery, the plot, the score...everything. I never thought that Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise could act, but their performances made their unbelievable characters a reality. However, the true star of the film was Kirsten Dunst. At 12 years old, this girl was able to hold her own against her co-stars, and often stole the scene (particularly the incident in which Claudia tries to cut her hair and subsequently Lestat discovers the corpse in her bed.)

You don't want to look for the meaning of life in this movie. It's a story. The plot is basically the history of a vampire's life, and I don't understand why people are compelled to trash a movie because of its simplicity. Look at the title. That's all it is, and if you expect more you're setting yourself up for disappointment. It's not the deepest of movies, that's why it should be enjoyed for the intense dialogue and the great production that went into it. Others trash the movie because of its homoerotic undertones. This aspect is so fleeting that it's ridiculous to dwell on it, and if you dwell on such an insignificant aspect of the movie then you were obviously looking for something to bother you. One additional thing: to even suggest that the violence in this film could be responsible for incidents such as the Columbine High School killings is beyond moronic.

This isn't the greatest movie that has ever been made, it's certainly not a complex analysis of life, or a parable with a moral dictating the enjoyment of life. It's a brilliantly produced gothic tale of a vampire, nothing more and nothing less. In respect to the book, I've never read it and I don't particularly care to read it. But for all of you who have been complaining about the movie not living up to the novel, here's a clue that might prove useful in the future: the book is ALWAYS better than the film. Don't waste your time complaining about something that is understood.

Continuing my plan to watch every Tom Cruise movie in order, I come to Interview With The Vampire (1994)

Plot In A Paragraph: Louis (Brad Pitt) a vampire tells his epic life story: love, betrayal, loneliness, and hunger.

At the time of release, this was not like any other vampire movie I had seen. In movies like Lost Boys and various others, being a vampire is portrayed as almost fun. This movie goes into what a curse immortality is, in a similar way Highlander did, admits all the decapitations.

Cruise does not play the main role in this one, but he does something all great actors can do. Play the best part in the movie and steal every scene. The best role in a movie, does not need to be the lead role. It just needs to be the most memorable, and Cruise dominates proceedings and truthfully the movie is duller when he is not on screen. Which sadly is almost all the last half of the movie.

Brad Pitt is not an actor I really care for. There are exceptions, but generally he bores me. This is one such example. I must point out Kirsten Dunst,who was rightly nominated for an Oscar. Her performance is superb. If it was not for Cruise she would have stole the movie. Antonio Banderas is OK, whilst Cristian Slater doesn't really have much to do. I never realised Cruises future MI2 co star Thandie Newton was in this. I enjoy the use of Guns N Roses cover of Sympathy For The Devil over the end credits too. I actually let the credits run.

I wonder why there was never a sequel, it's certainly open for one, and the potential is there. Maybe it wasn't a big enough hit. Finishing outside the Top 10 highest grossers of the year. As Interview With The Vampire grossed $105 million at the domestic box office, to end the year the 11th highest grossing movie of 1994.

Do not read reviews, just enjoy.

Great script.

Solid direction.

Nice production.

The gay elements where watered down compare to the book.