Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles

Based on the Anne Rice's novel and with a screenplay adapted by herself, this film tells the story of Lestat and Louis, two vampires with over three hundred years. Directed by Neil Jordan, has the participation of Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise and Kirsten Dunst (as a child). It received two nominations for the Oscar (Best Art Direction, Best Original Score).

This is the film adaptation of one of the greatest horror novels of this American author, and is even more appealing when we realize that she actively collaborated with the production, signing the adaptation of the script. Indeed, it's a great script, faithful to the novel and original story. And for me, this movie has another good note: fully escaping the recent "sex symbol vampire" cliché, fueled by movies like "Twilight", this film depicts vampires as they really should be: monsters with some psychological depth.

The actors are excellent in their roles. The highlight goes obviously to Pitt and Cruise, who were not only perfectly able to give charisma to the characters but also not ignore the importance of the psychological characteristics. Pitt took it to the extreme in his character, torn between the love of his own humanity and the overwhelming desire for blood he feels. The way both actors share the scene is irresistible, such as how Cruise transforms his character in "evil genius" of his friend.

The film contains several very intense scenes with moments that can hurt some sensibilities. Nevertheless, its not a very bloody movie. The atmosphere is dark, sinister, something largely enhanced by the cinematography, dark and misty, and the soundtrack, worthy of a good horror movie (something that this film is definitely not). The special, visual and sound effects are good, such as the characterization and makeup. The costumes are exceptional, portraying accurately the clothes of the several historical periods portrayed throughout the film.

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

A man (Brad Pitt) who turned into a vampire way back in 18th century New Orleans tells his life (and afterlife) story to a skeptical modern-day journalist (Christian Slater) in novelist Anne Rice's unique take on the famed supernatural creatures of the night. Pitt goes into major details on how he became a vampire (thanks to vampire loon Tom Cruise in a wickedly wild over-the-top turn) and his run-ins with others like him (a very young Kirsten Dunst and a then-unknown Antonio Banderas). Opulently realized schizophrenic exercise that has a little bit of something for most audiences. Pitt is focused, Cruise is unbound and Dunst arguably does the work of her life. Director Neil Jordan (who is best known for films of similar style like "The Crying Game") knows exactly which buttons to push and when to push them. While flawed in many areas, "Interview With the Vampire" is still nevertheless a fun and entertaining venture that definitely has blood, teeth and wings. 4 stars out of 5.

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.

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.