Add a Review

  • smatysia26 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.
  • 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 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...
  • 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.
  • 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: 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).
  • 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")
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Do not read reviews, just enjoy.

    Great script.

    Solid direction.

    Nice production.

    The gay elements where watered down compare to the book.
  • 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.
  • '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!
  • Dark09 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
  • 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.
  • "Interview with the Vampire" is a film based upon the "Vampire Chronicles" series by author Anne Rice, whose other novel of the series - "Queen of the Damned" - was also made into a film in 2002 (originally titled "Interview with the Vampire II" in production phase).

    Although "Interview" is far from a flawless picture, it does boast some remarkable visuals from director Neil Jordan, who seamlessly integrates the modern day America with that of a few centuries ago. The story begins with an avid reporter named Daniel Malloy (Christian Slater) being granted an interview with an enigmatic young man named Louis (Brad Pitt), who eventually claims to be nothing other than a living, breathing vampire.

    He recalls his story to the reporter in dismay and disillusionment, telling how his dreams turned to ruin and he was deceived by the seductive Lestat (Tom Cruise), who promised him eternal life...but never divulged into the misery it would provide him.

    The story traces back hundreds of years to the revolution and Louis and Lestat's tale drastically alters through the years as the eras change and new faces come and go. For Louis, this is the most disheartening aspect of being a vampire - having to see the ones you care about disappear forever.

    Louis forms a friendship with an orphaned vampire named Claudia (Kirsten Dunst) and their friendship completes the tension between Louis and Lestat, which escalates as the film progresses.

    "Thelma and Louise" might have made Brad Pitt semi-famous as a pin-up boy for a while but it was "Interview with the Vampire" that gave him his career as we know it today. In fact, after making the film, Tom Cruise reportedly never wished to speak to Pitt again because he considered him to be a fierce rival in showbiz - a younger talent trying to steal the veteran's Hollywood presence. And Pitt has succeeded quite well at not only equaling Cruise's star power, but arguably surpassing it.

    His performance is the key to "Interview with the Vampire." He's far better than Cruise, who demanded praise for his "camp" performance - it's alright, but it's basically just Tom Cruise acting out his personal life...after the whole thing with him jumping on Oprah's sofa, it's really not so hard to see him acting this over-the-top in reality.

    Pitt conveys emotional conflict behind his cold stare, and that is the vital element of the film. Another powerful aspect is Neil Jordan's direction - the cinematography is beautiful and perfectly captures the essence of the modern day Gothic vampire film, picking up where Coppola left off with "Bram Stoker's Dracula." In fact, they form nice companion pieces, although "Interview" boasts far superior acting.

    All vampire movies are based upon a heavy amount of eroticism - the seduction of the vampire as a metaphor for sexuality. Jordan really captures that here. Cruise's flamboyant performance portrays Lestat as a metro-sexual, and there are certainly intentional scenes of sexual tension between Lestat and Louis, particularly when Lestat first seduces Louis and drinks from his neck. It almost becomes uncomfortable to watch to a certain degree.

    "Interview with the Vampire" is not a flawless film - it's too long and a bit too "heavy" for its own good - but overall it is an entertaining and effective vampire drama.

    As a trivia note, the soundtrack for this film contains the last official recording of the original Guns N' Roses lineup - a cover of the Rolling Stones' "Sympathy for the Devil."
  • "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.
  • In modern day America, a journalist is approached by a handsome young man to hear a story told. He tells a tale that begins hundreds of years prior, where he was a landowner who had lost his wife and daughter. He tells of being turned vampire by the suave killer Lestat. However the blessing of eternal life as the undead becomes a curse.

    The hunky cast is clearly a major part of the reason that this film was as successful as it was – the imdb voting breakdown shows it ranking highly among female groups. However this is maybe not a fair reflection of a film that is certainly glossy and professional, but not as rich in depth as it is visually. The plot is reasonable, I have not read the book so I can't compare, but the plot was thin for the majority of the time. As a journey with Louis, it fails to really grip and involve and ends up being a little dull as it feels like it's going through the motions. A big problem is that much of the plot is character driven – which would be fine if the film had strong characters, but it doesn't.

    Instead the characters are pretty bland and lacking substance. Louis is interesting at first when he struggles with the change, but after that he becomes all slick and starts speaking in a low, quiet voice! Most of the vampires are the same and the relationship between them aren't well done – it all feels very superficial without any meat on the bone. The actors must carry some of the blame. Pitt is way out of his depth and flounders with a character he is unable to bring the complexities and sorrows out of convincingly. Cruise looks like a model and is more pretty boy than devilishly dashing – his character is a fine example of what I mean by superficial. Dunst is OK for a child but all she really does is play the role in one way. Banderas is a poor choice for his role and he looks a little out of place – although Rea is good in his role.

    Overall this film looks good and Jordan has done a good job as director. The score is effective and the film has a good list of names in the lead and support roles. However both the story and the characters lack a substance which was sorely needed to engage the audience. While Louis battled to keep his regrets and his human heart, I battled without luck to find any heart within this slick, glossy movie.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Tweekums2 August 2016
    Warning: Spoilers
    This film opens in modern day San Francisco as Louis, a man claiming to be a vampire, starts to tell his story to a journalist. His story begins in New Orleans in 1791; Louis is a wealthy plantation owner but he can't get over the loss of his wife and child a year previously. He deliberately puts himself in dangerous situations but rather than getting himself killed he meets the vampire Lestat. Lestat turns Louis into a vampire but he seems no happier and can't bring himself to feed on people; instead he survives by drinking the blood of rodents; something that disgusts Lestat. Eventually he feeds on the housemaid before heading to a plague infected area of New Orleans. Here he bites the young Claudia, Lestat then turns her into a vampire. Louis treats her like a daughter but as the years pass she has difficulties accepting the fact that she will always be a child and eventually takes her revenge on Lestat for turning her into a vampire. Louis and Claudia then travel to the Old World looking for other vampires; what they find isn't what they hoped for.

    Vampire films usually centre on those seeking to destroy them of their potential victims so it is interesting to see the story told from the point of view of a vampire. Brad Pitt does a fine job as the emotionally tormented Louis and Tom Cruise is impressive as he plays against type as Lestat. Young Kirsten Dunst is great as Claudia; beautifully portraying the girl who is doomed to never grow up. The story is told in an interesting way and the old New Orleans setting provided plenty of atmosphere. As one would expect from a vampire film there is some bloody violence although less than one might expect. The action is important but not as important as the characters and looking at the question of what it means to be a vampire. Overall this is an impressive film that fans of the vampire genre are likely to enjoy.
  • I have never read Anne Rice's novel but she did write the screenplay for this film - all I can say is "Wow! One of the best Vampire films I have ever seen and one of best stories involving Vampires." Everything about this film is amazing: the costuming, the sets, the story, cinematography, and the casting! Lestat (Cruise) is one of the vilest Vampires I have ever seen but towards the end of the film I found I understood him and somewhat sympathized with the character.

    Claudia (Dunst) I felt really bad for her... she is a young girl turned and she will never have a chance to grow up.

    Louis (Pitt) I felt pity for. He never wanted to "feast on a human". He remained strong in that area for a long time - feasting of small animals most of the time. But towards the end he became more like Lestat.

    This is a must see for all Vampire fans! 9.5/10
An error has occured. Please try again.