Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles (1994) User Reviews (541)

One of the best vampire movies I've ever seen

[filipemanuelneto · 8/10 · 1 August 2016]

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.

Tom Cruise IS Lestat

[smatysia · 8/10 · 26 December 1999]

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.

A lavish, deep film.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 8/10 · 16 January 2020]

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

Deep-thinking vampire searches for meaning in eternal life

[Aquillyne · 10/10 · 31 January 2005]

'Interview with the Vampire' is an atmospheric, highly gripping "film involving vampires" - not a "vampire movie". Whilst the latter would describe a film that focuses on its vampirism and might be judged on the sharpness of its fangs, this "film involving vampires" has all the merits of the very best cinema, and at its core is nothing but a fantastic story carried by compelling, believable characters.

For those who may not be able to overlook the vampiric content, look again. The vampirism herein is a plot device, a way of presenting characters who cannot die or age or be harmed, so that the philosophical questions of life itself can be explored. But equally, for those who will be interested in the vampiric content, this film presents a rich mythology backed by a trilogy of books, which fleshes out the concept of the vampire in a much deeper way than any other production.

Every person has their own world view, their own way of living and thinking. People can be brooding, contemplative, cautious, reasonable, carefree, hedonistic, optimistic, emotional - and every shade in between. But these are all world-views based on the knowledge that life is short. What would happen if told their lives would never end? Who would be happiest? What would they do? How would eternal life affect each person? And most importantly, if a way of living was bringing meaning to a person's life, would that still work once life was infinite? All of these questions help us explore philosophical ideas as old as time, and that exploration is the focus of this film.

The story is propelled by vampires Louis (Pitt) and Lestat (Cruise), each representing a different take on life. Whilst Louis, who began as a depressive wanting to die, thinks of eternity as an extended curse; Lestat, who seems to live every second as it comes, barely even considers the future three minutes hence. Told from Louis' viewpoint as he struggles to find some meaning in a life he knows will never end, we are taken on a ride across the centuries, as Louis' outlook and happiness undulate whilst characters and relationships come and go.

Alongside Louis' turmoil in coming to terms with his (now eternal) life, a secondary theme is explored, which is the notion of survival. Even though Louis is clearly dissatisfied with life, he never attempts to end it, despite this option being open to him. In other words, surviving, in and of itself, was a motivation that outdid any other. Most importantly, survival outdoes Louis' trouble over the fact that his only source of nourishment is now the blood of living animals, preferably humans. Despite attempting abstinence, and then attempting to drink only the blood of rodents, this basic feeding instinct proves too much for Louis. And yet, as Lestat points out, what is the problem? The fittest always survives, and whoever is lower down the food-chain will be eaten. Humans eat animals, and vampires eat humans - it's all natural. But nonetheless, are there moral limits? Even if you have to kill a human, is there a more moral way to do it? "Monstrous," Louis exclaims, as he watches a group of vampires murder a defenceless girl. Yet might survival require the forgetting of moral consciousness, like Lestat?

'Interview with the Vampire' explores all of these deep, important issues whilst delivering an incredibly powerful story populated by charismatic characters, haunting and diverse settings and immortal dialogue. Gripping from start to finish, you will be enamoured at the vampire-world opened up to you; and by the end, you are left wondering what choice you would have made, given the one that Lestat never had...

Obviously misunderstood

[Ken-4 · 26 September 1999]

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.

highly underrated, often over-looked

[fraggerrock · 8/10 · 23 September 2006]

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.

Ornate, lushly filmed horror, with erotic overtones

[Falconeer · 7/10 · 22 January 2007]

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.

Vampire essence

[Dark0 · 10/10 · 9 October 2003]

I have a passion for films with dark settings. What's even better is when the film is not only dark and dismal but also deep and engrossing. With a combination of Anne Rice's script and Neil Jordan's direction, the overlooked Interview with the Vampire not only looks great but contains good material. Most of the time when a film is based on a novel it will try to capture the themes of the novel by choosing areas to work from. Luckily Anne Rice also writes the screenplay and understands more than anyone else what areas need addressing, providing the backbone to the dialogue and plot.

Set in 1791 Orleans and progressing through different periods of time, IWTV is technically excellent and aware of its surroundings. From the first moment your eyes are fixed on the screen. This is the sign of great art direction coupled with costume design and set pieces that are more than pleasing on the eye. Far from in your face the film allows a taste of each period with a mixture of light and colourful scenes to the more prominent dreary settings it encompasses. Moonlit streets, abandoned plague ridden residential and underground gothic architectures all add to the great detail that has been taken in creating a believable and picturesque look to the films periods it contains. Helped also by a musical score that really lurks in the background, depicts the time and in some areas the feeling aptly.



The story, told with a mixture of narration from the protagonist (Brad Pitt in this case) and a screenplay with enough room for all the stars makes a tight little package. At just over 2 hours long though, this may put off the viewer looking for an all out action vampire piece or those with little patience. Interview after all is a drama at heart with horror elements but what sets it apart from others is the humane way in which it's dealt with. A point in the film that leans on stereotypical vampire views sets the tone of the film perfectly, fiction aside Vampires aren't so unlike humans which is portrayed through the emotions (or rejection of them) throughout. One of the key players in such a task is surprisingly Tom Cruise as the bad influence Lestat. In one of his more challenging roles, Cruise conveys a charm that fits the theatricals of his character perfectly. Through excellent makeup and clothes from a period he refuses to break free from, Cruise is less distinguishable but all the more better for losing the usual side of him that may have been too familiar. Left only with a look of ferocity and impertinence Cruise works his role to a brilliant combination that really brings out the character of Lestat making him extremely fun to watch. Lestat's mood swings and cruel insinuations really spark the film up, stealing every scene he's in.

What makes the film interesting is how every character has a background and each character has different things that make them tick. Along for the ride with Cruise and Pitt is a very young Kirsten Dunst as the disillusioned vampire child Claudia. It seems that Jordan is a good director for getting performances as Dunst gives a fine performance at such a young age, definitely showing more promise than the usual teenage focal points she has set herself on since. While Lestat is the most enjoyable character and practically the teacher, Louis and Claudia are the key elements to a story of self-discovery concerning the dark world they have joined. Other than this Christian Slater and Antonio Banderas share little screen time but enough to make their characters wholesome enough.

One area that I applaud but others may disclude is the vivid scenes of a gory nature used profusely throughout. Jordan, going for realism and with blood being an important part of vampire life includes graphic details.. and with no holds barred. Jordans realistic touches add only to the plausibility of the vampire way of life, emphasising the grotesque way of living they are lumbered with for eternity. Such a eternal damnation is one of the main themes of the film exploring the depreciation of Louis and Claudia and how they come to terms with their new life. It would seem that such a serious tone to a fictional tale would make it hard to enjoy but with a mixture of dark humour throughout the film knows not to take itself 'too' seriously. The end clearly establishes this fact nicely.

Minor quibbles aside like some hokey dialogue from time to time and despite Pitt underplaying his performance a little, among the Vampire genre and even as a drama this is a classy piece of work from a intelligent director with a flair for dark style (in most of his other films too), and more importantly produces a epic tale with sturdy direction. If you have the interest for a drama, specifically based around vampires there is little other choice than this. Through its fine performances and stunning look one things for sure, you wont forget this one easily.

7.5 out of 10

needs something to drive the plot better

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 7 November 2014]

In present day San Francisco, reporter Daniel Molloy (Christian Slater) interviews Louis de Pointe du Lac (Brad Pitt) who claims to be a vampire. Back in 1791 south of New Orleans, he was a 24 year old owner of a plantation. He is in grief over his wife's death in childbirth. He wants to die and Lestat de Lioncourt (Tom Cruise) answers his wish. Yvette (Thandie Newton) is Louis' favorite slave whose killing is the final act before he sets the plantation on fire. Louis refuses human blood until he finds young Claudia (Kirsten Dunst) living besides her dead mother. After Louis has a taste, Lestat converts her to a vampire.

Were we ever so easily swayed by the simple promise of sexy vampires? Apparently we were. Of course, there is more to this than the two sex symbols of the time; Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt. Director Neil Jordan is able to bring Anne Rice's Gothic sense to the big screen. It is beautifully shot and expertly crafted. However it doesn't drive. At least, the plot isn't very hard driving. This is a ponderous affair. The movie already shows that Louis exists at the end so he doesn't have the tension of danger. The story plods along but it does so beautifully. It's also quite a nice introduction to Kirsten Dunst. She's amazing in this and probably out-acts Brad Pitt.

one of the best in vampire genre: awesome cast.

[surfisfun · 8/10 · 15 April 2021]

Do not read reviews, just enjoy.

Great script.

Solid direction.

Nice production.

The gay elements where watered down compare to the book.

Still one of my favorite vampire movies!

[paulclaassen · 7/10 · 12 May 2021]

'Interview with the Vampire' is exactly as the title indicates. A reporter interviews a vampire, Louis, and we learn about his life and loves through his retellings. Brad Pitt stars as Louis, a man who tragically lost his family and in the process lost his desire to live. Antagonist vampire Lestat (Tom Cruise) came to his rescue. Or did he? Did het not condemn him to eternal misery instead of saving him?

Indeed so. We see Louis battling coming to terms with his new life - that as a vampire. Although Louis and Lestat are now both vampires, they couldn't be more different, and I found this an interesting approach to the age old vampire traditions and traits. I once read writer Anne Rice was upset upon learning Cruise was cast as Lestat, being "the wrong person for the role." However, Cruise is so fantastic as Lestat that she personally apologized to him afterwards. Tom Cruise truly is incredible in this film. For someone who was supposedly one of the most unlikely candidates for the role, Cruise seems all too perfect!

'Interview with the Vampire' is a stylish film with great costumes and cinematography, with beautiful settings and production design. The make-up is also excellent. There are a lot of very disturbing images, though, and a lot of blood sucking scenes - many of which are gross. Due to the graphic nature of the film it certainly is not recommended for everyone, and most definitely not for kids. You're going to have to choose your audience well with this film.

'Interview with the Vampire' is still one of my favorite vampire movies, providing loads of thrills, chills, action and adventure. I love it!

Romantic, melancholy and beautiful - a vampire epic for the new millennium

[Libretio · 9/10 · 10 June 2005]

INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE: THE VAMPIRE CHRONICLES

Aspect ratio: 1.85:1

Sound formats: Dolby Digital / SDDS

17th century New Orleans: The relationship between an ancient vampire (Tom Cruise) and his bloodsucking protegé (Brad Pitt) is tested to destruction by a young girl (Kirsten Dunst) who challenges their established dynamic, leading to betrayal and murder.

A doom-laden meditation on life and death and the nature of grief, based on Anne Rice's bestselling novel (written as a response to the death of her beloved daughter), and featuring two of contemporary Hollywood's most recognizable stars (both astonishingly beautiful here) as vampire and willing victim, remaining eternally young as the world evolves around them. Cruise plays a seasoned killer who revels in bloodthirsty excess, while Pitt is a conscientious objector who balks at the prospect of drinking human blood, until Cruise creates a 'companion' for Pitt in the shape of a little girl (Dunst) who refuses to grow old gracefully, with tragic consequences.

Scored with melancholy grace by composer Elliot Goldenthal, and beautifully designed and photographed (by Dante Ferretti and Philippe Rousselot, respectively), the film is epic in concept and execution, spanning the social upheavals of 17th and 18th century America and the horrors of 19th century Europe, where a nest of ancient vampires (led by scene-stealer Antonio Banderas and a miscast Stephen Rea) wreak terrible revenge on those who transgress against vampire lore. But, for all its spectacle, director Neil Jordan (THE COMPANY OF WOLVES) - working from a script credited to Rice herself - maintains a leisurely pace and never loses sight of the characters. The movie contains some beautiful, transcendent passages, including a breathtaking transition from 19th century Europe to modern day America via the introduction of motion pictures (everything from SUNRISE: A SONG OF TWO HUMANS to GONE WITH THE WIND and SUPERMAN!), and an incredibly moving sequence in which a once-proud vampire is discovered in exile, laid low by his own vanity.

The film's delicate tone is upset by a trick ending which comes completely out of left-field, though Jordan has denied any suggestion of studio interference. And, as with the novel, the homoerotic undercurrent is mere window-dressing, an unconsummated tease which the filmmakers (and Rice herself) refuse to explore in any detail, lest it frighten the mainstream crowd. Sadly, the movie is dedicated to the memory of River Phoenix - originally cast as the interviewer who provides one half of the film's title - who died of a drugs overdose during pre-production; his role was taken by Christian Slater. Followed by QUEEN OF THE DAMNED (2002).

Everything! But the ending

[Calicodreamin · 7/10 · 5 January 2022]

Interview with a vampire is this dreamy look at being a vampire, narrated by an irresistible Brad Pitt. The vibe of the film is dark and mysterious. Characters have depth and are well acted. I love everything about this except for the ending, it never seems to fit.

Drink from You and Live Forever? No, I'm Okay!

[jmillerdp · 4/10 · 5 September 2012]

*** SPOILERS *** I am reviewing this movie given you have seen it, or don't care to know all of what happens in it.

Tera-gallons of blood = nothing. Brad Pitt's Louis shows up at Christian Slater's apartment to tell him all about his life as a vampire. But, after all of it is over, neither Slater nor we know why we have sat through the interview or the movie, for that matter.

I am guessing that Anne Rice's novels are mostly circle-jerks like this one. A full story of vampires, killings, grousing about being vampires, etc., with no reason for it.

After the initial gory proceedings calm down a little, you begin to think that this could end up being an entertaining story about a family, even though a very macabre one. But, about three-quarters of the way through, that is stopped, and it becomes just a lot of revenge and killing. You end up feeling more tortured about going through it than Louis does.

Then, the final scene is just a standard "shock" ending, like in a "Friday the 13th" movie.

I really only sat through it because it seems fairly well regarded, and I have kind of run out of movies to watch. This one I could have passed on.

**** (4 out of 10 Stars)

The Saga of a Vampire with Human Soul

[claudio_carvalho · 8/10 · 29 May 2017]

In San Francisco, the journalist Daniel Malloy (Christian Slater) interviews in a hotel room a man called Louis (Brad Pitt) that claims to be a vampire. Louis tells that he was the owner of a plantation in New Orleans and happily married with a daughter. In 1791, he grieves the loss of his wife and daughter and has no wish to live anymore. Out of the blue, he meets the vampire Lestat (Tom Cruise) that attacks him and asks Louis to choose whether her wants to die or to turn into a vampire. Louis accepts to be a vampire but is reluctant to kill humans, drinking animal blood to survive while Lestat feels pleasure in killing human. When Louis meets the girl Claudia (Kirsten Dunst), who has just lost her mother in an outbreak of plague in New Orleans, he does not resist and drinks her blood. Lestat turns Claudia into a vampire to keep Louis with him. Louis treats Claudia as a daughter while Lestat teaches her to be a killer. Years later, Claudia gives laudanum to kill Lestat and flees to Paris with Louis where they meet the vampires Armand (Antonio Banderas) and Santiago (Stephen Rea) that pose of actors in a theater with other vampires. But a tragic event changes the saga of Louis in Europe.

'Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles" is a Gothic film that discloses the saga of Louis, a vampire initially with human soul. His grief and pain for the loss of his wife and daughter; his transformation into a vampire and relationship with the Lestat; his love for the vampire girl Claudia; his wrath for the vampires in Paris; his return to New Orleans are told in a screenplay written by the author of the novel Anne Rice and directed by Neil Jordan. The changing of behavior of the immortals Louis and Lestat along the centuries is intriguing with the bon vivant Lestat losing his interest in life and Louis questioning the meaning of many things that he has experienced. The cinematography and the art direction are amazing and the haunting music score complete this good film. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Entrevista Com o Vampiro" ("Interview with the Vampire")

Dunst Shines, But Cruise Steals The Show

[slightlymad22 · 8/10 · 29 September 2017]

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.

Swooping In.

[tfrizzell · 1 January 2006]

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.

Redefined Vampire

[bkoganbing · 7/10 · 26 May 2016]

For better or worse Anne Rice has redefined what a vampire is in movies and literature. Before there was the Twilight saga there was Anne writing her novels and seeing Interview With A Vampire we see that vampire now means Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt. No longer is it Bela Lugosi with his continental suaveness and Hungarian accent.

But Cruise and Pitt are just as deadly, maybe more so. The film is exactly what it says. Journalist Christian Slater has tracked down Brad Pitt whom he interviews. Pitt tells him about his afterlife as a vampire dating from colonial New Orleans with a few highlights in New Orleans and Paris where he settled in the Third Republic years. There's also young Kirsten Dunst who masters a most difficult role as a child vampire. She's matured, but rather strangely.

The homoeroticism sticks out all over this film especially with Cruise and Pitt when Cruise takes that bite and initiates him into the vampire existence. What beautiful children they would make it if it were possible.

People who loved the Twilight Saga and other recent vampire films, this is what really starts it. Bela, it's been nice knowing you.

Has stood the test of time. bloody good movie

[tm-sheehan · 9/10 · 17 May 2023]

My Review - Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles (1994) My Rating 9/10

What a delight to revisit a movie decades after its original release and to re discover performances like an 11 year old Kirsten Dunst who is superb as Claudia the young girl who is granted eternal life as a Vampire that will never age by Vampires Lestat De Lioncourt played by Tom Cruise who certainly delivers a devilish performance and Louis De Pointe Du Lac played by Brad Pitt in one of his finest roles ever in my view .

Claudia in retrospect is one of the most interesting characters in the film from the time she is discovered mourning her dead mother by the Vampire Louis to her eventual demise later in the film.

I don't recall Kirsten Dunst getting the same recognition for her excellent performance that Jodie Forster received for her role as Iris in Taxi Driver 1976 or that Brooke Shields received for her role as Violet in Pretty Baby 1978.

I think Kirsten Dunst is wonderful in this film and it's easy to see how this role was a precursor to her fame today in films like The Power of the Dog and Melancholia .

The late Great film critic Roger Ebert described Kirsten Dunst's performance as a deeply eerie one and described her role at the time as being "one of the creepiest aspects of the story." This aspect of the story involving the relationship of a pre pubescent girl and an older male if todays moral compass is applied would probably be dropped from the story today and that's exactly what happened in 2023, more on that in my review of Interview with the Vampire TV Series .

It was also interesting to go back 3 decades to watch 3 early pivotal performances from 3 actors who have all also gone on to impressive movie careers .

Brad Pitt who plays Louis dePointe du Lac the Vampire being interviewed was 31 years old at the time of filming and I think gives a finely nuanced performance as he recalls his life from 1791 as a New Orleans plantation owner who mourns the life of his wife and child hoping for death himself until he meets LeStat De Lioncourt the Vampire . LeStat feeds on him and rather than leave him die as he wishes by mixing his blood with the young grieving plantation owner restores him to the eternal but problematical life of a Vampire.

The role of LeStat is played with great style and panache by Tom Cruise who was 32 years old at the time of the films release.

Antonio Banderas who plays Armand has a vital supporting role as the Vampire Leader Louis meets in Paris . Louis accompanied by the still child like Claudia escapes to Europe from LeStat to begin their search for others of their kind.

Usually I like some humour in horror movies but this is a serious drama and looks exquisite even on the small screen the film score by Elliot Goldenthal was deservedly nominated for an Oscar but lost to Hans Zimmer for The Lion King.

The film also missed out on its second nomination for Art Direction by Dante Ferretti and Set Decoration by Francesca Lo Schiavo they lost to THE MADNESS OF KING GEORGE with Art Direction by Ken Adam and Set Decoration by Carolyn Scott.

It's hard to fathom why Neil Jordan the Director missed out on a nomination as the quality of the look and performances in Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles has the same stamp of quality that his superb film The Crying Game had in 1992 in which he did win an Oscar in 1993 for Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen.

I recommend anyone interested in that period of Cinema towards the end of the 20th Century and there are many many great movies of that era rewatch or watch for the first time Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles it's a bloody good movie.

Merciful death is bittersweet.

[michaelRokeefe · 7/10 · 16 November 2002]

Great sets and equally impressive costumes fill this lurid and dark vampire tale. Anne Rice adapts her best selling 1976 novel for the big screen. The story of depraved love, lust and hunger is told to a reporter(Christian Slater)by Louis(Brad Pitt)the conscience-stricken protege of the unremorseful and lascivious Lestat(Tom Cruise). Lestat tries hard to convince Louis that the blood of New Orleans aristocrats is the most pleasing of all. Louis would rather suck the blood of rats and chickens than to take human life. Joining them for companionship is Claudia(twelve yr old Kirsten Dunst)who favors sinking her fangs into whores and elderly women. Armand(Antonio Banderas)the oldest living vampire in the world lashes out his judgment of the three blood suckers.

It is fun watching Cruise and Pitt living as a couple in hopes of hiding their vampirish way of life. Miss Dunst is absolutely great as a character that ages thirty some odd years while staying in the body of a child. Note:Cruise was not Rice's favorite choice to play Lestat, but after the finished product was said to be more than pleased. Moody and gruesome, but a must for vampire fans.

Fantastic movie based on a fantastic book

[GhostShell10 · 10/10 · 17 October 2022]

Now this is how you do an adaptation that while still has changes from the book, preserves the central spirit of it without compromising on the core tenants of the creator's vision. Beautiful, haunting, mesmerising, this is the Vampire Chronicles in its greatest glory. The 2022 tv show is cheap flavor of the month in comparison. I do not know if we will ever see another good adaptation of the VC, but if we do, I truly hope it respects the vision of Anne like this movie did. Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt and Kirsten Dunst more than live up to the iconic characters they portray, and more than likely will never be surpassed.

I watched it a tad too late...

[estebangonzalez10 · 7/10 · 17 March 2014]

"Who will take care of me my love, my dark angel, when you are gone?"

I just recently got around to watching Interview with the Vampire, twenty years after Neil Jordan directed this successful film, and I have to admit the recent overload of vampire films and novels over the past decade did affect my viewing since most of the innovative elements that Anne Rice introduced here I have seen in later films and TV series (like True Blood). I'm sure many of these films were inspired by some of Rice's original ideas which made this movie stand out above prior vampire films. Unfortunately I'm giving this a lower rating because I am a bit tired of these films and in my opinion the best vampire film continues to be Let the Right One In (which managed to stay low key unlike this epic story). Rice's story is imaginative and Jordan's direction visionary, thus creating a unique and dark vampire drama with some strong performances. The film did drag at times and it is a bit too long but several scenes were intense and skillfully delivered. If you are a fan of vampire films or of Anne Rice's work then you will probably enjoy this much more than I did because it is dark and Gothic, but it does have its weaknesses and the ending is a bit off note.

As the title suggests, the story is told in the form of an interview as a journalist named Daniel (Christian Slater) encounters a 200 year old vampire named Louis (Brad Pitt). His story begins in 18th century New Orleans after having lost his wife when he was 24. Deciding he didn't want to live any longer, Louis set out to destroy his life picking fights at local bars. One night while doing this he catches the attention of a vampire named Lestat (Tom Cruise) who gives him the opportunity to become like him. Louis accepts and becomes Lestat's apprentice, however he isn't satisfied with his new life as a vampire and refuses to kill humans. Louis hates who he has become, but his life changes when Lestat turns a little girl named Claudia (Kirsten Dunst) into a vampire and together they form a family. Louis continues to narrate his story through two centuries as they encounter troubles and betrayals along the way.

Tom Cruise is a huge action star and at times it's difficult to separate him from his characters, but surprisingly he lost himself in the role of Lestat and gives a convincing performance as a blood lusting vampire. Brad Pitt despite not losing himself in the role as well as Cruise does still delivers a believable lead performance. The real surprise for me however was the young Kirsten Dunst who gives the best performance of the film. Once her character is introduced the story really picks up and it becomes engaging. In my opinion the interview scenes didn't work too well; I would have preferred if Louis simply narrated his story directly to us considering Slater's character doesn't really do much as an interviewer. Despite some flaws in the story, the film does look good and the effects are also done well. Jordan and Rice were able to create a unique vampire film that stood out from the rest and that is the reason why 20 years later it is still talked about and referred too.

Gothic romanticism AND gore.

[BA_Harrison · 8/10 · 19 May 2012]

With its photogenic cast and a story-line revolving around the emotional anguish that goes hand in hand with vampirism, Interview With The Vampire could be accused of being the 90s precursor to Twilight; its vamps might be sad, however, but they sure ain't sappy: the vampire Lestat (Tom Cruise) would happily tear Edward a new one; Claudia (Kirsten Dunst) would rip out Bella's throat without batting an eyelid; Louis (Brad Pitt) would find it hard to join in at first, but his hunger would prevail. That's because Interview With The Vampire is a proper vampire movie with proper vamps designed for a mature audience, not watered down PG-13 tripe aimed at the less discriminate teen demographic.

Interview's bloodsuckers might have emotional issues to deal with—immortality and a constant craving for blood doesn't come without its baggage—but when it comes down to it, these guys see mortals as food and having a relationship with dinner is only going to get messy (much better to slash their throat and be done with it); Interview's brutal bloodsuckers (and its R-rating) ensure that viewers get a healthy helping of gore to go with their Gothic romanticism, Stan Winston's incredible effects giving the film plenty of bite. Factor in excellent direction from Neil Jordan and great turns from its stars (Dunst is amazing for her age), and what you have is a terrific vampiric horror in the truest sense.

Seductively Misleading

[electronmove · 7/10 · 22 March 2022]

This film is based on the wildly popular Anne Rice novels which were what started the huge boom of "sexy vampires" in the 80's and 90's and reinvigorated the genre with a gothic American twist. The movie does the job for the most part of translating the first book to the big screen and captures a lot of the drama that unfolds, but in the end it feels more like a summary rather than a complete story.

Seems to last for eternity

[film_ho · 1/10 · 14 August 2006]

Interview with the Vampire opens with a great helicopter shot of the San Francisco Ferry Building and zooms up Market St. After that, everything is wrong. Christian Slater as a journalist? You're supposed to believe him in that role because he wears glasses and chain smokes. Brad Pitt was so-so as a disillusioned vampire, but looked so gorgeous in his fake teeth, who cares? But Tom Cruise was simply ludicrous as Lestat, delivering lines like, "I give you everlasting life and you fritter it away on the blood of poodles." Probably the book, which I found impossible to read, was every bit as bad as the film, but there must have been a way to film this garbage. After all, the sets and costumes were quite good, and the homoeroticism strongly emphasized, probably to Tom's intense annoyance. Seeing him with his mouth full of incisors pretending to be a bored with eternal life fop was more than anyone should be expected to bear. There may be some roles he can perform (Jerry McGuire), but god knows why anyone would believe him as a vampire. I tried to watch this twice, but the whole catastrophe was too embarrassing, not to mention dull.