Rating: 
Summary: Haunting and Beautiful
Review: "Interview With the Vampire" is NOT a horror film, though it is populated with those blood-sucking horror favorites. It IS a passionate tale of love and seduction, regret and revenge, tinged with humor throughout. As the film begins, there is an incredible palette of colors, beautiful sunrises, lush golden fields, green forests, inky-blue clouds and blending sun. When Louis is "born to darkness", everything suddenly changes to dark velvet, lit only by the silver moonlight. The beautiful production design by Dante Ferretti , wonderful costumes and art direction by Malcolm Middleton re-create the multiple historical periods in the film. From the renaissance New Orleans and the beautiful rococo Paris of the 18th century, to our present days.The film is about a 200-year-old vampire, Louis de Pointe du Lac (Brad Pitt), who tells his story to a reporter (Christian Slater) in contemporary San Francisco. After his human existence as a widowed Louisiana plantation owner is ended in 1791 by the vampire Lestat (Tom Cruise), Louis has a hard time adjusting to life as a neck-biter. He's a vampire with a soul, and he doesn't like taking human lives. Still, a vampire can exist only so long on the blood of rats and poodles, and Louis eventually follows Lestat's example. Things become somewhat more pleasant when Lestat presents Louis with a(companion, Claudia (Kirsten Dunst), a 6-year-old Louis grows to love as a daughter. Questions and bitterness lead to tragedy and a search that leads to Europe and back to the New World. Anyone who gets hung up on the gore in this film isn't getting the point. So let's spell it out - e-r-o-t-i-c-i-s-m. This is the definitive example of why vampirism is a metaphor for sex, and, frankly, it couldn't have come in a better-looking package.
Rating:
Summary: Not the typical movie
Review: How is it that very few books become top movies? Interview With the Vampire is alluring enough as a book, the movie even more seductive. When I first saw the movie I cried for Louis and continue to do so when ever I watched it. No part was left out, but I just wish that the makers could of used the same filming technique that was used in Sleepy Hollow. The pain of a vampire that can feel as humans do that is just sheer talent. An actor that can portray that vampire that is just charisma. Kirsten Dunst showed us an exact copy of Claudia and how we all feel. The vampire tale is not the usual Dracula version. The emtion and hope that was put into this amkes everyone think. Perhaps I think more than others do, but can we not see ourselves be like these creatures in some ways? We all have the selfish side, we are all tormented by something, we are all cold and ucaring in some way. We are truly vampires in certain ways.
Rating: 
Summary: For Anne Rice fans only
Review: This movie is mostly for Anne Rice fans. I thought the movie was okay but you get tired of Louis whining through the whole thing.I prefer Dracula to these pansy vampires. Are all the vampires gay in this movie? I also did not like the line about Bram Stroker being a demented Irishman. Dracula is a classic novel, not this pornotrash of Anne Rice.If I was a vampire I would make myself vampire friends and party all night, not brood and whine like these losers. If these characters were straight they would make themselves vampire girlfriends! Even real life gay men who become vampires would be having more fun than these losers!I did like the production value and the location shooting. (You can visit sights where the film was made in New Orleans in the French quarter and on a plantation outside New Orleans)I did not understand how Louis killed the vampires in Paris. How come they did not come back to life like Lestat? I prefer the Dracula legends, not all of this revisionism of Anne Rice. I do love New Orleans and the location shooting which is why I give it 2 Stars.
Rating: 
Summary: Just Gross and not a bit scary! Watch Dark Shadows instead!
Review: Come on people. This was a terrible movie. I bought the book but didn't read it, although, I could tell from just scanning over it that it was better than this piece of garbage. They eat rats, gross! Not scary. Isn't that what a movie about vampires is supposed to be? Dark Shadows in the 60s was scarier than this piece of junk. I agree with whoever wrote the review about feeling sorry for them and yes we should feel sorry for them getting in this movie. ( ditto to whoever said this) I think the poeple that wrote such good reveiews were just dazzled by Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise's good looks. I think also the book was more gay oriented so if it had included that, none of these straight people would have written such great reviews and if there had been unknowns in this movie nobody would have cared about this movie. Brad Pitt's character is a little sympathetic and you do feel a little sorry for him Kristen Dunst does a great job in her role. Bottom line though, is the movie is long, boring, drags and does not keep you on the edge of your seat being scared. I used to have nightmares with Dark Shadows, the old 60s soap and this doesn' even come close. Try Silence of the Lambs if you want to be scared. True it's gross too, but there is suspense and story moves and the acting is great. Save your money with this one and watch Dark Shadows on the Sci-Fi station.
Rating: 
Summary: The Best Vampire Movie Ever!!!
Review: I truly reccomend this video for any body who is as obsessed with Vampires as I am!! This movie is the best!! I have it memorized from watching it so many times!! It just brings you right into it! You feel like you are actually these characters and you want to be a part of them! You end up talking to/with the movie screen and you actually feel the same way they do! I own almost every Vampire movie That I've heard of but I don't watch them as much as I watch this movie. I love Brad Pitt and Tom Crusie and Kerstian Dunst so much!! They're the best!! I just can't get over the fact that I LOVE this movie!! I could even recite some lines!! (Scene: Claudia's Bedroom. Claudia sitting on her bed humming to herself as she draws a picture of a woman as Lestat walks in with a gift for her) Claudia: Another doll? I have dosens you realize? Lestat: I just thought you could use one more! Claudia: Why always on this night? Lestat: What night? What do you mean?? Claudia: You always give me a doll on the same night of the year! Lestat: Oh, I didn't realise. Claudia: Is this my birthday? (silence) You dress me like a doll, you make my hair like a doll why? Lestat: (changing the subject) Some of these Claudia are so old, tattered. You should throw them away! Claudia: (screaming) I will then! Thank-you for your time!!
Rating:
Summary: How Else Can We See Our Beloved Lestat?
Review: I would just like to say that this movie, although different from the book in some ways was faitful mostly and that although it breaks the mold of most horror films it still can send a chill up your spine.
Rating:
Summary: A vampire film with a difference
Review: This film, based on a novel and screenplay by Anne Rice is rather different from most vampire movies. This is a film told from the point of view of the vampire rather than from that of his victims or those who set out to destroy him. It is not a traditional horror film and, unlike the majority of vampire films, it is not really frightening. This is mostly because we never actually get to relate to any of the victims of the vampires. They are all just unknown, anonymous people playing convenient walk on parts. Instead, the film focuses on the life of a vampire. What is it like to be immortal? How to reconcile former human feelings with the constant need to kill in order to achieve immortality? What does it mean to select another person to be initiated as a vampire? These are the major preoccupations for the vampires in the film. The film concentrates on Louis de Pointe du Lac (Brad Pitt) and follows him from his vampire beginnings in New Orleans to modern San Francisco. Unlike most vampire films, he is depicted as a person with feelings of his own as are his creator Lestat (Tom Cruise), their joint creation the child vampire Claudia and Armand, the oldest vampire (Antonio Banderas). The story is told through the means of an interview with a young journalist played by Christian Slater. The phrase "star studded" hardly begins to describe the cast list for this film and the whole movie has a feel of a large budget which has been well spent. The only thing lacking seemed to be that, while the film had a lot of action, it had little real atmosphere of the sort found in, for example, "Nosferatu the Vampyre" by Werner Herzog. The film is fast paced with action all the way but there is little in the way of plot or mystery. You know pretty well all the time what is likely to happen next. That only detracts a little from what is one of the best vampire films around. If you like this film, I'd recommend the Herzog film mentioned above.
Rating:
Summary: BOOM! Lestat shoots, he scores!
Review: All right, I won't bore you with a lot of technical details about the DVD edition of this movie. Yes, the sound and picture are great. Here's the important thing, however: It has a French language track. Let's face it, this was just about a perfect film except for the fact that Brad Pitt mumbled and Tom Cruise sounded like ... Tom Cruise. They both looked great in their roles, but they sounded really bad. Also, why was everybody speaking English? Dude, they're in late 18th-century New Orleans and Paris. These freaks would have all spoken French, right? Well, now the movie's perfect. All you have to do is crank up the French-language track on the DVD, sit back, and watch the sparks fly. BOOM! What a great movie now that it's in French! (Okay, fine. So their lips don't quite match the French dialogue coming out of their mouths. Be that way. It's close enough. That's why I gave if four stars instead of five, since it's maybe still not totally perfect.) For those of you who haven't seen the movie, it's opulent, gorgeous, lush, sexy, a little scary, and all that other good stuff. See it if you haven't, then watch it again on DVD in French and see how much better it is! Unless of course you're French, in which case you can skip the first part and just watch it in French right off the bat. This movie is good.
Rating: 
Summary: Peh. The Book was SO much better. :(
Review: Dammit, what a wonderful idea for a movie, no? But the movie wasn't all that I thought it would be. Tom Cruise was absolutely BEAUTIFUL as the clever and sexy vampire Lestat, with his curly blond locks and red-stained teeth, but he, along with the gorgeous scenery are the only reason why this movie even got up to 3 stars from me. Pitt on the other hand just always seemed to be confused and sad. Maybe the true Luis was all of that too, yes, but Ann Rice just makes it sound better. And casting ANTONIO BENDARES (sp?) as Armand? That just blew me away I was so disgusted, lol. Isn't Armand supposed to boyish looking and just about everything else that Antonio isn't? I personally think Johnny Depp would have made a perfect Armand. The movie was definite eyecandy, but it was just too dissapointing to enjoy. I don't know how so much of the plot in the book was ignored, weakened, or replaced by a bland scene. If you already have your own impression of the characters from "Interview" in your mind and you haven't seen this movie, I don't reccomend you do because it isn't a very good portrayal of the passion, beauty, and heart that overflow in the novel.
Rating:
Summary: Exquisite Visual Mold of Modern Literature (4.75 stars)
Review: Very rarely do films compare with their literary counterparts, being that movies simply cannot reach the psychological perimeter that first and third-person novels attain. There is no delving into the plotting brains of the conniving villains and even the whole-hearted protaganists. We're left wondering what they're thinking, no matter how good an actor it is that's playing their part. This movie, however, kept my attentions without falling short of expectation or accuracy in adaptation. The cinematography, set design, special effects make-up and immaculate 19th-century attire were luscious and realistic. The time period is vivid and beautiful, even when we are viewing it in the darkest of midnights throughout the movie. Colors are slightly neutralized and the faces are as clean and beautiful as we would expect them to be. Tom Cruise is sensational as the debonaire and malevolent Lestat, an other-worldly creature with lingering grace, extreme vanity and a zealous motivation for murder. A velvet tongue and feminine sophistication, he lures both men and women alike into his arms, whispering sweet nothings and seducing their lives away. Kirsten Dunst is sheer perfection as Claudia, the ageless angel of death with the visage of a doll-like porcelain beauty. Her voice was literally the sweet tinkle of a silver bell, a description recited quite a few times in the novel. Beneath her powdery complexion and innocent, rosy-lipped smiles lies a gratuitous penchant for blood, the core of her survival and ultimately her outlet for her hatred of Lestat. Louis is the tortured soul, a remorseful creation full of woes and self-loathing. Brad Pitt definetely had the beauty the character called for - the long, silky brunette hair, the chiseled features and the sorrowful but lovely gaze with his brilliant viridian eyes (they're actually blue, but the green contacts were interesting). Pitt did a wonderful job with his role, but I think Cruise and Dunst blew him out of the rink. The villians are always more fun, anyway. Where the story line comes into play, there is no falling short of detail, with a few minor exceptions in the beginning. People who have read the re-popularized novel by Anne Rice will know what those fine details are, but in the end they aren't of any significance to what rightfully remained. There are quotes pulled directly from the book that fall in just the right places without sounding trite or contrived. The old superstitions (stake in the heart, no reflection in mirrors) are stamped out with more realistic beliefs, such as the undead being consumed by flames and sunlight, but there are some interesting twists added, such as the imbibing of blood with inactive red and white cells, or blood from corpses, to put it simply ("dead blood"). Now, a compliment to the heart-racing and emotionally driven soundtrack, orchestrated by a collossal talent named Eliot Goldenthal. The soundtrack for this movie, I think, is his greatest achievement so far in musical composition and originality. It has the glory of a ballroom scene in late 1800's New Orleans with the suffocating corsets, rouged cheeks and blanched wigs. The score stabs and swipes in harmony with moments of tension, the perfect example being Claudia's explosion of rage, accompanied by Goldenthal's piece entitled "Claudia's Allegro Agitato". Listen and watch, and you'll be amazed at how perfectly the score compliments each scene. I have only one qualm with this film, and this is why I only rank it four and three-quarter stars - Antonio Banderas. This was the only casting mistake. Don't get me wrong, he wasn't bad, but he wasn't a good character representation for Armand. Armand is almost a child. He was seventeen when he was created, therefore has a very child-like face. Plus, he's Italian. Why a 30-year-old, Spanish-speaking actor? I don't get it... I imagine in her personal viewing of the film before it hit theaters, Anne Rice had only one regret: the letter she personally penned to Tom Cruise begging him to pull out of the role of Lestat. Now that's egg on her face...or should I say blood?
|
