Intervista col vampiro

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.

When you ask someone to name the best movies to come out of the early-mid 90's, not many people would mention this movie. That's too bad.

It isn't American Beauty deep, but the film presents real human emotions through the surreal notion of vampires. Cinematography, set design, and score are top notch. It doesn't look dated at all, particularly in this day in age of CG, blue screen galore.

The acting....i hate to admit, because i'm not by any means a brad pitt or tom cruise fan....is pretty darn good. This was the first film I saw tom cruise in and thought (gee...the pretty boy can act), the other coming to mind being Magnolia. Brad Pitt isn't as great, but holds his own and it's a quiet, somber Brad Pitt, which is a good change to the normally twitchy, over-the- top characters he portrays (fight club, 12 monkeys, ocean's 11....even se7en to a certain extent). and of course.....kirsten dunst....who's best role in her career is this film.

I haven't read the book, so i am writing purely on the film. Apparent by the other reviews here, there are people who really like this movie. It's a shame that more people haven't given this movie a chance.

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.

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.

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.