Rating: 
Summary: The most real vampire movie ever made
Review: This is the most real vampire movie this is what i think vampire are if they we're real things.The best band is Kiddstir
Rating:
Summary: a very crazy awesomly weird film
Review: This film is great and weird film. All the girls think Brad Pitt and Tom cruise are so hot and watch them as vampires is great. Their performances are great,the story kicks ass, and a shat load of gore. This movie shows that vampires are hard to kill. I still think the best vampire film is dracula dead and loving it. Yeah its a Mel Brooks movie but its hilarious. The best horror is this. But then again I like Bram Stokers Dracula. Thats the best but Mel Brooks is hilarious. You need to watch this and buy this dvd.
Rating: 
Summary: Good movie, but prefer the book.
Review: I'm not going to bother telling you about the storyline. You've probably heard it already... Overall, I thought that this was a nice take on Anne Rice's novel itself. Like most fans, I was a bit wary of the cast, especially when I heard that Antonio Bandaras was cast as Armand. Not that I don't like him, but doesn't the vampire have auburn hair with cherub-like features? Sorry, but Antonio just didn't cut it for me. He was better in Zorro. As for the other actors, I thought they played their parts quite respectively. Tom Cruise was indeed bratty as Lestat, and I was quite surprised to see Brad Pitt play such a whiny and sympathetic Louis. Ah, don't get me wrong. I loved Louis in the book. Claudia? For a child actress (during the time it was filmed) I thought Kristin Dunst did pretty well for herself. What I wished to see though was the side of Claudia that was truly evil. Oh yes, the movie-goers understand her plight and all, but what they didn't see was how EVIL that little vixen could be, and how she brought on the destruction of Lestat (and Louis in a manner of speaking). Such an endearing child, isn't she? This vampire flick shouldn't exactly be called horror, though. Fans of Anne Rice should understand that Hollywood WILL change certain passages to satisfy the theatre audiences. (Yes, I'm referring to the ending sequence of the movie, the one where Lestat is in the car.) I was quite upset with that part as well. My personal opinion? I liked both the book and the movie. Both are quite excellent in their own manner. But first, read the book then watch the movie. Then enjoy yourself as you sit back, relax, and watch Claudia pull out her hair again.
Rating: 
Summary: Beauty is frightening
Review: After watching this movie I read some of the reviews that said this movie was boring or simply bad - just out of curiosity. And all of them had one thing in common. They said that it wasn't a good horror movie. Indeed, this is not much of a horror movie. It was never intended to be. Making it into a horror movie would be an insult to the book, which was sensual, intensive and (a bit sloppily, I must admit) philosophical. That is much more than can be said for horror movies. The movies that manage to be this just don't fit the box anymore. And it is ridiculous to call them bad just because they do not fit certain standards or expectations. The actors were great, although the full potential of Banderas was not taken advantage of. Kirsten Dunst astonished me - a child with the ability to play such a complicated role seemed impossible to be, yet here she was, as good as her co-stars Pitt and Cruise, who were simply stunning. What was missing in the movie was the chilling cruelty of the child, Claudia, which was certainly the most frightening aspect of the book - in the movie she just seems a lost little girl, growing into a teenage girl, not a woman, really - but this is not the fault of the actress, certainly. If I could change a few things in the movie, these would be: 1) making Claudia seem more like the cold-blooded doll she was in the book, 2) using the charisma and mysterious nature of Banderas to its full potential, and 3) changing the scenes that take place in the modern times - these, I feel, lack the style and taste of the rest of the movie, especially the end, which was so typically Holywood I positively hated it. This movie, however, was a fine one. It was desperate, sensual, erotic and very aesthetically pleasing - more than I expected. The beauty of the human body. Incomparable, indeed.
Rating: 
Summary: No "bite."
Review: I very much looked forward to this movies release. Having read the famous book upon its publication, I, like many, had my own vision about who should play whom, and how it should unfold. Such obsession can only bring disappointment, and this movie certainly did that, for me. Though the production values are lavish, I found it was totally mis-cast. Tom Cruise is, I'm sure, a nice person, as his constant gleeful grimace would suggest. But, in my opinion, he is just not that good of an actor. He has done some decent roles, and says all of his lines with all the conviction he can muster. But his casting as "Lestat" totally ruined this movie for me. You are never not aware that this is Tom Cruise you are watching. I also found Brad Pitt awful as "Louis". He says his lines as if he's very uncomfortable with the words coming from his mouth, as if he's reading them from a monitor. I really don't blame these stud-muffins for being cast, as this is what sells movies to the general public. But I would much rather have seen two excellent unknowns, of which there are many, play these roles. Antonio Banderas is laughable as "Armand", not only mis-cast, but he says his lines as if his mouth is full of marbles. Stephen Rey, cast hot off the heels of his role in "The Crying Game", acts insane. There are also several roles, such as one of the female vampires in "The Theatre de Vampires", which could have been beautifully developed into a brief but memorable, sensual, horrifying role. Instead, we get some blousy redhead who cavorts like Joan Rivers. This movie needed to be crafted with skill and depth, and it just wasn't. It has all the mystique of almost any rock video, glossy, glamorous, and disposable. It should have had the atmosphere of a film such as, say, the original "Cat People", a film made with a small budget, before special effects, but which still weaves such dark suspense and horror with its skill and subtlety. Again, when a movie is made from a hugely popular book such as this one, it's almost always bound to be a disappointment, and, for me, this movie is no exception. I really wanted to like it, and went into its viewing with the upmost of anticipation and optimism, despite the casting. But, as it progressed I slowly had to concede that this film had no "soul", it was made to please the masses, most of whom have no taste. A lousy movie, made to be cast into video oblivion, where it now lies.
Rating:
Summary: Needs a blood transfusion. Or something.
Review: I liked this movie rather well when I was younger, but after watching it again recently, I found it almost intolerable. I don't know why I ever thought Tom Cruise as a pompous, nihilistic vampire was worth watching, because he's not. He's just TOO Tom Cruise to stand, and all the makeup and poncy clothing in the world can't change his mannerisms and facial expressions. This movie takes itself much too seriously, and all the manufactured angst and darkness reminds one of the public access Floridian goths on SNL. Honestly, Brad Pitt's acting was pretty okay, but any redemption to be found in his performance (as far as the film goes, overall) is eclipsed by the wretchedness of the rest of the production. I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone, save teenagers who perhaps are still impressed by this kind of thing.
Rating:
Summary: One of my all-time favorites
Review: This film, adapted from Anne Rice's novel, Interview with The Vampire, still manages to do it justice. Tom Cruise, I thought, made an excellent Lestat. He adds lots of interesting touches to the film and Lestat's character. For instance, how he hits the piano keyboard right before he tells Claudia that "she's been a very, very naughty little girl" Or pulling the lace out of his cuffs at the end when he ambushes Christian Slater in his car. I can't imagine the kind of Lestat everyone else was picturing because he matched my mental Lestat pretty well.
Brad Pitt, I thought, did an excellent job as well. He brought out the dilemma Louis faced everyday pretty accurately, and not insensitively. The quiet, cold Louis that we meet at the beginning of the film is far from the tormented individual we meet in his flashbacks. He skillfully portrays his transformation.
Kirsten Dunst, as everyone else says, did just fine. But I disagree with the critics on the point that her performance so overshadowed Tom Cruise's and Brad Pitt's performance. Antonio Banderas cracks me up in this movie.
The DVD comes with a couple special features. It offers a french language track and a documentary on the behind the scenes making of the film. It also offers full commentary by Neil Jordan. He helps you catch some of the small details that he worked very hard to incorporate into the movie. (Things like how they made the veins appear underneath the skin of the vampires, and how much time they spent making that sculpture of ash. He also spends a lot of time explaining the scene with Lestat and how they made the blood drain from his body.)
Rating:
Summary: Odd casting for a strange tale
Review: Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt as vampires??? Genius, if there ever was genius! These two, attractive actors who we;ve come to trust say, yeah? You like that? Well, walk with me. Isn't evil more dangerous if it comes wrapped in a pretty package? A package that's hard to resist? of course! Kirsten Dunst delivers a solid performance here as well. I know many Rice fans were angry with the casting, but I really feel it was a smart move. But, then I never read the book.
Rating:
Summary: film KILLED by REALLY bad casting choices
Review: For the most part, I didn't hate this film. However, Tom Cruise should NEVER have been cast as Lestat, imo. He almost looked the part, but he just didn't play it well (there are parts in the film where his acting is like a rake across a chalkboard). Also - Antonio Banderas as ARMAND? Armand, the 15 year old auburn/red haired vampire? Granted, Antonio played the role VERY well. However, were the casting crew members on drugs when they decided how to cast this? Bradd Pitt and Kirsten Dunst were both really good. On the whole, just about everyone was (except for Tom Cruise). Still - really slap-shod job on the whole. The book is far, FAR better than the film. Sadly, "Queen of the Damned" which is basically "Vampire Lestat" and "Queen of the Damned" all jam packed into one film (with creative liberties GALORE) was STILL better than this one, imo.
Rating:
Summary: Almost excellent...
Review: Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles are sensual and voluptuous books, full of heavy gothic prose and powerful images. The movie of her first novel, 'Interview With The Vampire' is none of the above, but still manages to be a decent enough film, although it lacks any resemblance to the mood of Rice's original writing. The plot follows the adventures of fledgeling Vampire Louis de Pointe du Lac (Brad Pitt), as told to a reporter (Christian Slater), one night in New Orleans. He starts from the beginning of his undead life and brings us right up to the present day, and introduces us to a host of grim characters along the way, the most prolific of which is Lestat, played with horrible boyishness by the hopelessly miscast Tom Cruise. The movie has many good points. Neil Jordan's style of direction suits the mood of the film very well, and in some places, excels (the Theatre Des Vampires sequence is particularly memorable). Also excellent is Pitt, in his role as Louis. He remains as faithful as he can to Rice's pedantic, melancholic Vampire as the oddly lacklustre script allows. The soundtrack is also deserving of a mention, as its lavishness complements the gothic mood of the film beautifully. The majority of glowing reviews for 'Interview', however, don't take into account the original novel, and it's here that the film fails. The character of Lestat DeLioncourt is that of a tortured and malevolent boy-monster, and yet Tom Cruise plays it with such high-camp gusto that we wonder if Warner Bros. gave Anne Rice money to retract her Tom Sawyer comments when she saw the initial screen tests. In Cruise's hands, Lestat becomes something like a Leslie-Nielsen style vampire, all fangs and drama and no substance. Similarly, Kirsten Dunst, who has now matured into a good actress, gives an overstated and hammy performance as Claudia, who, in the novel, is wise beyond her years, an unnatural and immortal monstrosity who eventually brings about the destruction of both Lestat and herself. And Antonio Banderas should never have been given the role of the Ayrean 16-year old Armand. He still speaks with a heavy Latino accent and is clearly a hispanic man in whiteface. He's nothing to do with the character of Armand. That said, 'Interview' is still a very good movie, though it fails to deliver the same punch and atmosphere as the original novel. It's a solid story, with many good points, but for anyone who's read the book, it's a shame that so much potential was cast aside in favour of Hollywood-style Overstatement.
|
