User Reviews (61)

Add a Review

  • "Interview" is something of an old fashioned two character drama updated to cover questions about just how much of the information we get in today's media saturated world can be trusted.

    The plot is simple. News magazine writer Pierre, who in his salad days was a top political reporter, has fallen from grace and is now lucky to pick up celebrity profile interviews. One night in New York he is assigned to interview a beautiful actress known for B movie horror films and highly sexed cable TV fare of the "Sex in the City" variety. Her only real claim to fame seems to be that she underwent a breast reduction operation, getting her implants removed.

    Through a fluke what starts off as an interview so disastrous that both want to immediately end it, turns into an all night affair when he bumps his head in a fender bender accident outside the restaurant where they meet. Rather than going their separate ways, they wind up going to her spacious loft where they spend the next few hours bobbing and weaving around each other like a pair of good middle weight boxers. And over the course of the evening, we learn quite a bit about both of them, or so we think.

    Steve Buscemi, who also directed, gets good marks for his acting, but even better for his work helming this story. He keeps it moving along with such energy and such conviction that one hardly notices that this is a two character set piece probably better suited to the theater and a small theater at that.

    The real revelation for me, though, was Sienna Miller, who I had never seen before and know virtually nothing about. She sparkles as the under appreciated sex symbol who goes along with that game because it has made her rich and famous. But there would appear to be a lot more to her than meets the eye, and luckily for us, she is not played as the clichéd dumb blonde with a heart of gold Hollywood usually trucks out in this kind of story. Miller's character is smart, at times highly manipulative, and more than able to handle herself in a verbal street fight.

    Whether in real life any actress, much less any journalist, would reveal their deepest secrets to a total stranger is highly questionable. But then part of the plothere is that we never quite know how much of what they say is the truth, and how much is manufactured. This is very much a story about how the media and celebrities use each other to attain their own ends.

    So what we come out with in the end is people who are smarter than they seem, but maybe a little less ethical than we would like them to be. And first and foremost in that category is the journalist, who we come to realize is not only capable of stretching the truth when it suits his needs, but also of betraying confidences if that will further his career.

    Miller's character is less easily defined, though, and some of that may be the script's fault, or some of that may be by design. There is a spot near the end of the film in which Miller's character clearly puts the mask back on. She re-establishes the wall between movie star and the member of the press who is there to interview her, nothing more.

    What that says is that most of, maybe all of, what happened on this unusual night was an illusion. Was it just the under appreciated actress proving she was much better at her craft than people thought? Was it a girl pigeon holed as a bimbo proving she was just as smart as the condescending intellectual reluctantly interviewing her? We never quite know in the end and that may be "interview's" one failure, because in the end, we really want to like the actress. We're just not sure if we do.
  • The premise here is that Steve Buscemi is a washed-up political reporter who is assigned to interview a tabloid-fodder actress known for her direct-to-video horror movie sequels (played by Sienna Miller). Neither one of them wants to do the interview but they wind up spending the entire evening together and (maybe) revealing a bit of the real person behind their defenses. The whole thing is a little contrived -- it's the sort of piece where both characters spend the first half complaining about how much they dislike the other, but neither one is willing to leave or ask the other to -- but the snappy patter and excellent performances sucked me in and I happily went along for the ride. Of course Buscemi is great, but Miller was surprisingly good as well, digging into the part of a sex symbol who isn't taken seriously with a lot of enthusiasm and self-confidence.
  • Greetings again from the darkness. The film is based on the original screenplay by Theodor Holman and a 1993 version directed by Vincent Van Gogh distant relative Theo Van Gogh, who was shot and killed in Amsterdam. Theo Van Gogh, a renowned journalist, once said "I prefer covering the war between a woman and a man." With this remake, director and actor Steve Buscemi does a wonderful job of doing just that.

    The set-up is simple enough. Buscemi plays a political journalist whose editor believes has lost his edge and is now assigning him fluff pieces. Enter the fluff piece ... a beautiful actress who is known more for her off screen "romances" than on screen talent. Sienna Miller plays the actress Katya and delivers an outstanding performance; by far, the best of her career. She is all over the place with the role, but stays focused on the internal torment and remarkable people smarts that Buscemi's Pierre is lacking.

    Along the lines of "My Dinner with Andre" and "Before Sunset", there is an enormous amount of dialogue and interaction between the two leads, who are on screen 95% of the time. Quite a statement in human nature's preponderance to pre-judge others, this is like peeling back the layers of an onion as each character uncovers a bit more about the other over alcohol, screaming and tender moments. Of course, the whole time the viewer is skeptical about which stories are real and which are fabricated or embellished for the purpose of the moment.

    Really an interesting film and directed with a nice touch by Buscemi, who is also at his usual high level of acting. Don't miss the quick glimpse of the real life Dutch star Katja Schuurman, who was in the Van Gogh version of the film. She is the lady who steps from the limo and greets Buscemi's character. A must see for those who love the structure of scenes with dialogue rather than special effects. And remember, there is always a winner and a loser.
  • Perhaps unsurprisingly, Interview proves itself an actor's dream. Co-written and directed by Steve Buscemi, the film is an insightful, at times intense exploration of the nature of celebrity, as experienced by a world-wearied, overly cocksure political journalist who'd do well not to underestimate his beautiful interviewee.

    Buscemi is Pierre, the flailing reporter who begrudgingly finds himself waiting to interview Katya (Sienna Miller), the latest in a long line of flash-in-the-pan Hollywood It Girls. As played by Miller, Katya is a charming, supercilious, seductive, wild-tempered, pouting, screaming enigma, proving much more densely layered than the Paris Hilton clone who first presents herself to Pierre at the restaurant an hour late, tiny handbag yapping with the sound of a miniature dog mobile ringtone. While it's clear the uninterested and impolite Pierre initially cares very little for his subject, a strange relationship begins to emerge between the unlikely pair as the evening takes a turn for the unexpected, with an injured Pierre invited back to Katya's spacious loft. Once here, moods swing violently, old wounds re-open and skeletons emerge from closets, an uneasy air of sexual tension underscoring the proceedings.

    Buscemi is certainly an excellent director of actors, himself not only in fine, sharply skewed form, but also earning from Miller possibly her best performance to date. This is literally a two-character piece, and thanks to the powers of both actors, Interview remains in constant command of our attention. If there's one complaint, it's that the film at times feels overly stagey, but this is a small grievance when weighed against the superior performances on show. The hand-held digital camera-work ably services a voyeuristic plot, and the script crackles with caustic repartee.

    The remake of a film by murdered Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gough, Interview is a tight, engaging drama with a thick nasty streak and an acutely barbed final act. It's a fine showcase for both Buscemi the actor and the filmmaker, and promises excellent things to come from Miller.
  • rajdoctor12 May 2007
    This movie was originally made in Netherlands (2002) by a Dutch Director Theo Van Gogh. As I am staying in Amsterdam, that know-how interested me and on top of that I have a liking for Steve Buscemi (obviously after seeing Fargo).

    This is a story of a political journalist Pierre Peters (Steve) who is given a job to interview a B-grade movie celebrity Katya (Sienna Millers). They meet each other at a restaurant, dislike each other instantly, part their ways and immediately bump into each other again to land up in Katya's spacious flat. The remaining story unfolds with each of them trying to outsmart the other by being witty. There is a final twist in the movie that makes the viewers satisfy.

    Both the characters are complex, especially of Katya – and I should say that even though Sienna Millers has tried her best and acted well too, still her character remains un-defined and shallow. This is the major slack in the scripting. Steve is wonderful and decent in this role. This is a special kind of cinema – mostly experimental – where the camera revolves around two characters in a room. But obviously Steve would have found the original movie so inspirational that he took the challenge to Amercianise it – with him on the driving seat as Director and Lead Actor.

    Good movie, especially if you are of a kind you are a risk-taking movie goer, and open to different kind and genre of cinema.

    (Stars: 6.5 out of 10)
  • Remake of Theo Van Gogh's film of the same name. This is the story of a self important reporter forced to do a celebrity interview with an actress "best known for who she sleeps with".

    Good but far from deep-despite what the film thinks-sparring between characters is an amusing if at sometimes uncomfortable 85 minutes. The joy here is watching the actors do what the do best. The real joy here is watching Sienna Miller who proves she really can act. After a few borderline roles and a cringe inducing performance (at least in the trailer) in Stardust she proves that she is oh so much better than we are giving her credit for (clearly she really isn't just an actress best known for insulting cities and whom she sleeps with).

    If there is any flaws its a couple of odd twists that seem to occur just to have something dramatic happen and to prove what bad people the characters are. Its a minor flaw.

    Is it worth seeing? Yes. But I don't know if it really needs to be seen on the big screen
  • Tim8519 October 2007
    Warning: Spoilers
    This movie is weird. It starts out interesting enough with Steve Buscemi playing a political reporter who has to do a story on starlet Sienna Miller and can't really hide his contempt for this.

    But it doesn't go anywhere. It's a chamber play, 90% of the film take place in the starlet's loft. The two of them go back and forth and the producer's would probably try to sell this as a soul striptease, or an emotional tour de force, but it's totally pointless.

    The dialog most of time is artificial, both characters say and do things that just feel unnatural. And all those dark secrets they're supposed to reveal in the process are boring and disappointing. The screenplay is not funny, it's not clever or philosophical, neither dramatic nor mysterious.

    And after almost 90 minutes of this you ask yourself: why make a script-driven movie if there's nothing to say?
  • Much more interesting and better done than I expected. I'm usually not an advocate for remakes, but when they are done to honor the original film instead of to simply make money I'm all for it. This one does that and more and is the best remake since The Departed. It works for a long list of reason's, most particularly because of the performances. Buscemi is fantastic as a slime ball and always has been. This is one of his better performances of the last couple of years. He relishes in this character, and it shows. He is funny, and disturbing at the same time. Sienna Miller has been becoming a better and better actress over the last year or so. She deserved an Oscar nomination for her performance in the underrated Factory Girl last year, and deserves another one for Interview. She plays a roll similar to herself, or at least her image. Many people say this is easier, but it actually isn't. It is extremely difficult and very emotionally draining. It is rare to find a performance like this that works so well. She is stunning, and deserves better work. The style of the film is interesting. This is thanks to Buscemi's odd, and very experimental direction. Against the odds it works, and elevates the film above just strong acting. Much of the style can also be attributed to the screenplay. The dialogue and characters are expertly drawn. They also are odd, and occasionally stilted, but that's part of why they work so well. It's been a long time since such a stilted and mediocre script worked so perfectly. Even when I say all this though I must say I did have some problems. While I was consistently entertained the "message", if you will, never quite came across. It is a strong one, and should have been paid more attention too. The director of the original film was a strong advocate for free speech, and stood for many wonderful things. He was murdered in 2004 tragically for offending someone with something he said and believed. This film is obviously channeling his beliefs and I just wish it had either forgotten them, or drawn them a little better. However it still works perfectly as an entertainment, which is after all the point of movies.
  • DaleHirst3 September 2007
    It felt like it was half finished. I expect Buscemi was meant to be the villain of the piece but I ended up feeling far more sympathy for his character than I did for Sienna Miller's protagonist.

    Maybe that was intentional but it left me feeling less than satisfied with the ending and at a running time of under 80 minutes, it felt like there could have been a lot more to the story. While I can appreciate films which leave you to fill in the blanks as you see fit - such as the otherwise completely dissimilar "The World According to Garp" - this film felt like it could have benefited from another half hour of story. Perhaps redemption of either character or revenge for/reversal of the trick Miller's character pulls on Buscemi's.

    That said it was extremely well written and directed and the performances by both leads were pretty exceptional, hence a high score, but for the dissatisfaction I felt with the ending it would have been an 8 or even 9 out of 10 for me.
  • This is a solid effort by Steve Buscemi and his co-star Sienna Miller. It would do well as a 2 character play on the 99 equity circuit. Buscemi lays good ground work in developing his character early, while Miller shows her stuff gradually. I found them both believable and not typical Hollywood movies fakes. The things that happened to them seemed real, and the writing was solid. I was impressed by Millers effort, she showed the person and the emotion behind her character. Buscemi took the time to let the audience gradually learn the people behind the show-biz mask. I cared about both people which is my fundamental requirement for any art form. I get pleasure from real professionals doing a god workmanlike job. Kudos to both!!
  • wisewebwoman19 July 2009
    Warning: Spoilers
    In a movie such as this, with a clever premise of a former brilliant journalist being demoted to interviewing starlets there should be some TENSION.

    I kept waiting for it. For some genuine cat and mouse play. So I forgave a lot of atrocious scripting and lack of character development.

    I mean Steve calls Sienna the C word when their interview breaks down in a restaurant and she then immediately rescues him when he gets injured outside the restaurant and brings him back to her apartment? Puh-lease. And the worst artificial wound I've ever seen on film, starts out real big, pouring blood, and then a bag of frozen peas shrinks it to gnat-bite size in 5 minutes. Yeah.

    And then what should have been reasonable dialogue to keep audience engaged is flimsy and unbelievable. He gets access to her personal laptop and breaks into her files while she's on the phone? They fight over the TV remote? He gets to French kiss her? Oh right maybe that was the payoff for Steve the person.

    I did watch to the end. I almost expected wedding bells in true Hollow-wood style but no, I was left dangling and not caring one whit.

    Don't waste your breath or your $4.00 (bargain bin at the local).

    4 out of 10
  • jamesssf18 June 2007
    I was invited to this movie's screening after meeting Steve Buscemi on a flight from Chicago. I was impressed to say the least. The movie is about two people who when they meet, think they come from two totally different worlds but come to find that they have more in common then they first suspected. The acting is amazing from both the actor and actress. Also the portrayal of human nature is accurate and how great or poor one's character/morals can be is awesome. To quote Steve: "It's a character driven movie that makes you ask questions." There was a good balance of comedy and drama with an attention to detail. It'll suck you in from beginning to the surprising end.
  • This movie is absolutely horrible, and it pains me to say that. I have been a fan of Steve Buscemi for years and watching this made me doubt him as an actor, director and definitely as a writer! The dialogue in this movie is just horrible and completely unnatural... I should go back through the DVD so I could quote something, but I really do not want to see any part of this movie ever again. Here is my attempt at recalling some of the dialogue:

    Steve: I am angry and bitter. Sienna: I should just kick you out of my apartment, but instead I am going to kiss you Steve: I am possibly gay, oh yeah, and my daughter is dead... I just thought you should know that just so I could make this situation more awkward. Sienna: I love you, Ihate you lets do some drugs.

    The end.

    Don't see this movie.
  • At the beginning, the movie is comforting; the cliché of two opposite worlds, and how all our prejudices are correct about these worlds: the girl is a spoiled celebrity and the guy is a smart journalist. You take sides immediately. You start to watch it with a smile on your face - inside, the pleasure to be justified about your prejudices (with the help of smart dialogs and gestures of course). Everything looks predictable, until you get the feeling that things (and people) might be different than they seem. Dialogs give you the intension that one of the characters might be lying, or both. The objects of your initial prejudices swap. In the end, you are surprised (but not shocked) to see that your initial judgments were wrong, and you shouldn't even be judging anyone at the first place, they are only human beings for god's sake, what do you expect?
  • I am a fan of Steve Buscemi. He is the real deal as an actor and as a director. He has done elite work as a performer and as an artist. Everyone fails somewhere, in some endeavor. Not a big deal. We all fail with some regularity in our lives -- at least, those of us who are human. So, this is a somewhat clumsy apology for the failure of "Interview." Here's the thing. It sucked. It sucked so badly I was knocked back on the couch, even if said collapse could be attributed to the four Budweiser American Ales (new brand) and three vodka Collins drinks I downed in order to be able to get through an hour and five minutes of the film. I will admit to being too weak to make my way through the rest. I had to turn it off, out of respect to Steve. I am not even close to being ready to concede that Buscemi has regressed as a director -- say, from "Trees Lounge" in 1996 to "Interview" more than a decade later. "Lounge" was the real deal, believable even if incredible in a few spots. What made it credible? I don't know for sure, but it stayed true to its turf. In "Trees Lounge," Buscemi's character gets to make out with Debi Mazar's hot and inebriated character. "No way!" you say? I say, "Way!" It's all about the setting, environment, and setup. I could very well buy that happening at Trees Lounge. Raise your hands, all who are chronic alcoholics. I see out there . . . not many hands, but a few. I have my hand raised. I am a long-time drunk and failure. I feel this gives me a modicum of "credential" in assessing films that leverage the motifs of drunkenness, addiction, and failure. -- But of course, that is delusional. Just because I am a f*&kup does not mean I have any ability to assess a work about f*&^ups. But forgive me. I digress. What makes "Interview" so bad is the contrived circumstances that are twisted in shape to enable the plot device of having a somewhat geeky journalist get in bed with a paparazzi wet dream diva. There are many bad devices that should have been edited before going full tilt with this one. Look, diva stars don't do B movie schlock. They don't do B horror movies. They do manufactured crap romance pieces. If they aren't pop superstars out of the gate or genuine teen stars that get great coverage with films like, I don't know, "Mean Girls" for instance, then they remain B movie actresses and never achieve celebrity. This movie got the sequence of events wrong in the "celebritization" of the object of the interview. Beyond that, the dialogue was so contrived and artificial as to be painful. I am not sure if the shortcoming should be attributed to the delivery of the actors or to the script, but the banter was not credible. The circumstances were not credible, and the movement toward increased intimacy of the two leads was not credible. Now, maybe it could have been credible. . . . But it wasn't credible as presented. It really failed, really badly. The babe lead would not have gotten into the male lead, given the setup. And even if we allow for the intervening set of circumstances that re-united them, . . . I'm sorry. This thing devolved into really bad meta-melodrama. Hey, if you don't agree, feel free to attribute it to my progressive loss of sensibilities due to advancing age, substance abuse, and life. If you want to see what Steve can do as a director, see "Trees Lounge." Okay. I am still a confirmed Buscemi fan and I love him. Just burn that copy of "Interview." Peace. Out.
  • A journalist of international politics is sent to interview a sexy soap opera star, but the situation heads in a wrong direction from the beginning. The interview turns into a furious battle of wills and a complementary spiral of deceits.

    Bogus, stereotyped, downright repulsive. "Interview" is pure agony to watch as the narrative progresses without any credibility while the dialogue is making you wince in all its pretentiousness. This is truly like watching a bad soap opera. Nevertheless, thanks partly to some intriguing "acting of acting" by Buscemi and especially Miller, between the lines the film succeeds in discussing its problematic theme: the relation between a journalist and an actor, in which information and truth become tradeable goods and instruments of power. At its best, "Interview" manages to widen its scope even to a deeper social commentary about the impossibility of commodified social relations. In a mediated society of spectacle, all human relations become nothing more than acted roles, and a genuine contact can no longer be attained.

    Despite the interesting - even if extremely pessimistic - argument, "Interview" suffers too much from empty, meaningless and stagnant dialogue. The essentially trivial questions of 'who betrays whom' and 'what is the "truth" about the characters' grow into excessively important motives for the narrative that quickly starts to repeat itself. The result is an unpleasant and contradictory watching experience. In the end, "Interview" is hard to like in spite of some serious effort.
  • wastebot9 December 2007
    Either over edited or poorly written from the start, leaving a really pointless story that is an entertaining enough cat and mouse game to get your attention, but takes it nowhere.

    Both Buscemi and Miller do great jobs acting, and it would be fair to say Buscemi did a great job directing. But the story...

    Unless the point of the story is that actresses and journalists think more clearly and sharply as they drink, smoke, and snort more, there is no point. The only other possibility is to provide an extended product placement piece for odd cigarette lighters.

    So I'm guessing that there was an assumption made somewhere that should have been explicit and developed in the film or a key part got edited out post-production.
  • In case you're wondering, this story was not written by "the" Theo Van Gogh (brother of the famous Dutch painter) but his great-grandson who wrote and directed the original "Interview" in 2003 a year before he was shot, stabbed & partially decapitated by a ticked off Muslim extremist who didn't like his movies.

    The only reason I'm mentioning this is to illustrate that Theo Van Gogh's films certainly had an effect on people. I haven't seen the original Dutch "Interview", but based on the story re-told here I see the kind of biting wit & satirical finger-pointing that packs a punch. While I seriously doubt anybody will get assassinated over this film, I'm sure it may (good naturedly) ruffle a few feathers in the world of self-important journalism and Hollywood tabloid reporting.

    Steve Buscemi plays an arrogant political journalist who is sent on a fluff assignment to interview a soap opera/B-movie celebrity (Sienna Miller). He's rude from the outset, but due to his grandfatherly appearance and self-deprecating, sarcastic wit he has a certain charm that's fun to watch. He's a character we love to hate, and that's what makes this film work.

    Sienna Miller is well cast as the starlet known for her love affairs & bust size more than her talent. But she's shown to be intelligent and good natured, so again we quickly become attached to her character even though she is a Hollywood cliché.

    What follows, in a very minimalistic, stage like show, is the torrid volley of love-hate banter between these two egos, each seeking to dominate the other. If you like the characters, then you're set for a fun and sometimes suspenseful ride. If you don't like them, well then I can see you becoming bored or annoyed.

    Really, though, who doesn't like Steve Buscemi & Sienna Miller? Here they have an interesting chemistry, at times father-daughter, at times more like bickering exes. And always one is trying to one-up the other. In the second half they raise the stakes, building momentum to a big finale which I found very satisfying.

    If you're a fan of plays or films made from plays, particularly ones where characters love to antagonize each other like "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" (1966) or "A Streetcar Named Desire" (1951), with a somewhat claustrophobic 1-on-1 presentation, then give this playful movie a shot.
  • lesliejh22 July 2007
    This script is completely contrived. Sometimes the acting is good--Sienna Miller plays parts of her flighty-actress role well, and Buscemi is good as a washed-up journalist. But the script is over-written and the plot is often ridiculous. His "finding" revealing information on her computer is just off-the-charts stupid. The premise of the movie could be good, but it was so over-wrought it failed. The endless "personal revelations" scenes were simply TMI, and would never have happened in that kind of situation.

    The twist ending was mildly entertaining (hence 2 stars instead of 1), but it shows Miller's character to be much smarter and virtually psychic about Buscemi's next moves than she would ever have been. A waste of time and money.
  • The first three minutes of this movie were quite funny and gave me false hope for the rest of the movie. The next 80-some minutes showcased the worst writing ever to make the screen. The senseless, round and round dialogue was painfully juvenile and downright boring. If you are forced to watch this movie, try to entertain yourself by counting how many times Katya tells Pierre to "Leave Now." Absolute trash. Bad acting. Worse writing. I wish that I had paid the babysitter to go see the movie for me instead of watching my kids. I tried to do the right thing and support an Indy movie, but I am jonesing for a real movie now!
  • Steve Buscemi's "Interview" is the remake of a 2003 Dutch movie of the same name (which I haven't seen, therefore I can't compare this to the original). Buscemi did a fine job behind and in front of the cameras. It was great to see him playing an atypical, much more serious role than usual - Pierre, a political journalist who's set to interview a blonde diva, B-movie star Katya (Sienna Miller, who surprised me with a good performance after her bloody awful turn in "Factory Girl", easily one of the most cringe-inducing performances I've ever seen). They end up at her apartment for a long night of talking, drinking, and secrets revealed.

    Buscemi and Sienna have the right chemistry, plus his smart script and directing find the right pace for this kind of movie, so their long conversation never gets boring. The somewhat unexpected ending adds a cynical touch to the narrative that'll be loved by some, and sound a little too sour for others. "Interview" manages to be interesting enough for its 84 minutes, without being absolutely fascinating, but still compelling to visit. 7/10.
  • This movie is entertaining just by the performances of Steve Buscemi and Sienna Miller despite its silly screenplay.

    I have to say that I liked the movie despite it was bad written, and I think the reason is because Steve Buscemi is a very good actor and Sienna Miller is likable in here, even though they play 2 characters who spend a night together in a very unrealistic situation acting in a very estrange way.

    Pierre Peders is a former political journalist now making interviews to the show business people thing which he doesn't like at all. One evening very strange things will happen to him when he interviews Katya a movie and TV actress ....

    6.5 stars = regular +
  • This film is about a political journalist's unconventional interview an actress who is known for who she sleeps with rather than her work.

    I was completely captivated by the film. "Interview" is quick to get down to business, and within 10 minutes of the film, all the character and plot ground work is already laid down. I was the most impressed by the script of the film, despite only 2 people being in the film, it never felt boring. The tension and power struggle between the two is portrayed very well. Katya is an unstable person, highly self centred and has no respect for others. She is ambivalent to most issues, such as asking Pierre to leave and then to manipulate him to stay a few seconds later. She is emotionally labile, switching from like to hate within seconds, manipulative and thinks dichotomously. Katya provokes so much counter-transference in me, I kept thinking "How could she do that". Together with the substance abuse and her chronic fear of emptiness, she is truly disturbed. Whoever wrote the script must have worked with a psychiatrist, as Katja's behaviour and speech is quite suggestive of borderline personality disorder.

    Sienna Miller is really good in her portrayal of Katya. At first I thought she was the laughing stock of the film as she was deemed to be "playing herself", an actress who is known by reputation rather than her work. Through her portrayal of Katja, I am impressed that she used this exact stereotype to overturn what people thinks of her.

    I am genuinely impressed by this film. It is a tight 80 minutes of dysfunctional interaction.
  • Interview, a remake of the Theo Van Gogh film from a few years back, is a taut tightrope act between two characters who can't stand one another and seem somehow fascinated all the same. Whether or not that fascination, or even that resentment, is genuine is also part of the sort of guessing game; is she really giving out who her real self, or is she actually mopey? The dialog is revelatory though, the kind that makes for great theater, where we're given two characters and a whole bottle of neuroses poured out into a one-night thicket, which is probably a convention too at this point with theater. But Buscemi makes it compelling cinema, for the bulk of it, before it starts to reel into the realm of the twisty-psychological guessing game- final twist included- that should seem natural but feels a little more of a contrivance. You really can't stand these people (or actually Miller's character), but you never want to look away from what they'll do next.

    It's about a political journalist (Buscemi) assigned to a "fluff piece", begrudgingly, with a hot young starlet of B-movies and TV (Miller), and after a bad dinner interview, or would-be interview, and a bad knock on the head in a taxi cab as Buscemi is leaving the restaurant, she invites him up to her place to clean his wound and suddenly the interview starts up again. Curiosity, coy word games, and the search for some kind of truth- about work, love, oneself with drugs, and the little dark secrets that come out of nowhere, take up what is 3/4 of the film's running time in the loft. One might wonder why this film needed to be because of Van Gogh's original film from years before (which, by the way, had the actors playing their characters with the same names, and as a real serious actor playing against a real TV star).

    But Buscemi, as writer, director, and actor, is never one to stop his form of weird fascination too. He's such a strong presence in Interview because he remains the 'voice-of-reason' even as his character drinks and drinks and tells a tragic story that didn't really happen like it was told. And Miller gets the juicy mind-f*** role, where she can go between all the roles that an actress goes through in melodrama while peeling past the layers to show, well, even more layers. By the end we probably don't know her any better than when she sat down for a drink at the restaurant, except perhaps that she loves getting into character and messing with someone who has no idea who she is, in work and in life.

    When Interview is at its best, it combines fine performances with a beat after beat of dialog that does a double-cross: it's playfully self-aware of the situation, but at the same time the two characters go for truths about one another that take people sometimes years to get at in 'real' relationships. That it's "game"-ness almost leads it into feeling like an indie-movie lark goes without saying; it's small, compact, and with enough to say in 82 minutes without overstaying its real-time welcome.
  • spelvini6 March 2014
    Warning: Spoilers
    When he dies I hope they preserve Steve Buscemi and slice him up to figure out how someone could present such a Cretan, regardless of how his character is written on the page. I will always remember his persona from the first time I discovered him on screen in Reservoir Dogs, as the non-tipping Mr. Pink of Quentin Tarantino's crime tale.

    In the case of the film Interview, we are very lucky that he decided to pursue funding for what for many was a very individual film in the hands of the original filmmaker Theo van Gogh. Van Gogh's background was ostensibly journalistic and his outspoken voice got him eventually killed. That Van Gogh's treatment of his subject matter may have been more for explication than entertainment, this adaptation may be better than the original.

    Generally American remakes (I don't know why Hollywood constantly does it) are not as good as the originals. Al Pacino was in the remake of Scent of a Woman (ugh…!), and was award an Oscar for his acting in the thing! The TV series The Office with Steve Carell is a remake of an excellent British TV show that is so far above the American simulacrum, that I am embarrassed to admit that it is playing in a country I inhabit.

    But the Interview remake has a lot going for it that the original doesn't. Steve Buscemi does double duty as director and lead character, political journalist Pierre Peders, assigned the task of doing a fluff piece on the flavor-of-the-week Sienna Miller's self-involved actress Katya. At first this seems like a thin plot to hang an entire film on, but the movie touches on several cultural flash points that are sure to cause controversy in the viewer.

    There's a particularly vibrant live feeling about the film, and this comes about primarily due to the way the scenes are directed. Buscemi's direction is to tap into the truth of the relationship between Pierre and Katya, and this does come off as caustic at times, but the actors always seem like real people.

    The look of the flick is well-matched to its themes. Three camera operators shoot consistently each scene from specific vantage points so that many of the reactions from the actors are spontaneous. This is a two-hander and Buscemi and Miller carry the entire feature, and the dynamic that ignites between the two is memorable and will leave you thinking through much of what the characters say and do as the screen fades.

    The film at times may feel a little too much like theatre. Things happen without a convincing amount of set up. We may wonder why Katya brings Pierre into her apartment in the first place. Some viewers may see it motivated by a sense of guilt on her characters part. Once inside it seems that each character needs the other to fulfill a need. This is never overtly expressed and director Buscemi allows the viewer to supply some speculation.

    Whatever reason works to drive the story, the needs of each character come out in caustic, sometime violent ways, and the integrity of each is shown as completely devoid of substance. You may feel that the conflict is a standoff, and that viewpoint depends on what your value system dictates.
An error has occured. Please try again.