le 29 juin 2004
this movie was absolutely wonderful. presently my best friend and I are in the middle of reading the book, and still love both equally, but we've noticed all the differences too. if you don't want to know what happens in the book, don't read this book, only know that both are wonderful. In the book, Louis has no wife and child, he is instead mourning the death of his younger brother, who he believes he murdered. He becomes a cold shell of a man...etc. then the movie continues correctly. Louis, as a vampire, falls in love with Babette Franiere, a mortal who runs a plantation not 5 miles from Point Du Lac, Louis's old plantation. he helps her, gives her advice from the shadows. she learns of his true form, and calls him the devil and shuns him from her home. the movie continues. Louis and Claudia leave for Europe, they find that Lestat has sired (to turn a human to a vampire) another. The movie continues, but Louis and Claudia search all of Europe for vampires, but mostly all that they find are mindless killing machines. they finally reach paris, where they find: Theatre des Vampires- a play of vampires posing as humans playing vampires. other than these few differences, the movie is almost exactly like the book. but even with these differences, both are by far some of the best vampire lore/stories i've read/seen ever.
le 9 juin 2004
Okay, first let me say that I have not yet read the book by Anne Rice. I had heard that this movie was good. "Good" is not a strong enough word. While other movies about vampires tend to be more on the phony side, this movie, in my opinion, was very realistic and believable. I do agree that Interview with the Vampire is less of a horror film than it is a work of art, but that certainly isn't a bad thing. Overall, this is an awesome movie and I highly recommend it.
le 8 avril 2004
I have watched so many movies that consisted of vampires and most of them have been so lousy that a few times I've felt tears line my eyes. But this film has to be the most beautiful, most truthful, and most amazing vampire movie ever created, and I can't thank Geffen and Warner enough for it. Even now, when I watch all these horrid vampire films that are continually made, I always know there was at least one vampire film that took my heart as well as my breath. The movie is darkly and seductively lit, just like the mood always is, and the actors fit the setting perfectly. No obnoxious, idiotic vamps here, but actually serious, compassionate and real characters. If you are a lover of vampires, and even more, a lover of the Vampire Chronicles of Anne Rice who wrote the novel to this movie, you will absolutely love both the actors and the way the movie is shown. Unlike other vamp movies, the vampires act their age- you know, mature- and the actors are supremely gorgeous. Even Tom Cruise with all that makeup on and blonde locks still appears just as sexy as ever- and do I even have to mention Antonio Banderas with that long hair? Well despite my drooling, there are many great actors playing in this movie. There's Tom Cruise as I've said, but at first glance you'll probably not even know because he has molded himself almost to the perfection of the character Lestat the way Anne made him appear in the novel, and has the exact personality of the vain and careless Lestat. And then there's the everlasting Brad Pitt who plays the sad, mournful Louis, and honestly, when you see this film, you'll see Brad Pitt is the best man to play this role. Antonio Banderas is spectacular as Armand- honestly, despite his age, Antonio is the splitting image of the ancient regretless vampire, and there's Christian Slater who is Malloy, the boy who interviews Louis as he pours out his whole story on tape. Then who can forget the cynical yet witty Stephen Rea who plays a head vampire actor in Armand's Parisian theater,and little Kirsten Dunst, who played the tormented child? All perfect actors who made the movie a gorgeous gem. You will not be disappointed with them I assure you.
This film is a lovely and yet exhilerating piece of work that speaks of the vampire Louis who has lived many decades and wishes just out of sheer want to tell his story. So he picks an interviewer who is nameless in this movie but if you read the Chronicles will know as Malloy. Up in an apartment in San Francisco these two sit in the room, Malloy taping Louis as he tells his long and sordid tale. He goes right to the punch and tells you how he was 'born to darkness'. It appears that for time sake they change the story around a bit at the beginning and instead of telling you his brother died and he blamed himself for it as Anne wrote in the novel, they tell you he lost his wife in childbirth, and it deeply upsets him and places him in a deep state of depression that is just teetering on he being suicidal.
Then Tom Cruise comes in as the striking character he is and instantly you are watching Lestat convert Louis to what he is, a vampire. Then the movie goes deep as the duo fight constantly and then convert a daughter, Claudia, that Louis loved ultimately, possibly an outlet for the pain he felt by losing his real child years back. Then as he travels the world, seeking for vampires, Armand comes to his life and tells him the facts of life from a vampire's angle, entrancing Louis ever more deeply and yet also leaving him more bitter than before, but always still feeling.
This movie tells a story not just of vampires, but also of humans as well. It tells the truth of human life and how sensitive it truly is, and that some people see life much more differently than others. It also teaches you though about vampires and how if they exist this is how they would be. There are a few that are rude and vain like Lestat, and then there are some that are compassionate and loving like Louis, and then there are some that are just tormented and lost like Armand.
The makeup and costume affects were excellent, the settings were lovely, and the story is perfect for just a relaxing night alone on the couch. And although I did hear some rumors that there were a few disputes between the actors on set, especially between Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt, they sure hid it well and made this a movie to be proud of.
I recommend this movie to all viewers alike, for it's a movie meant for everyone to see, not just supernatural lovers. I guarantee you, you'll be laughing, gasping, and crying throughout the entire movie. It's just that good.
le 23 mars 2004
Interview With The Vampire, is the film adaptation of Rice's Novel, originally written in the mid '80s. The film explores the psychological makeup of the vampire mind. A creature once mortal turned vampire, lurking the streets in the night, only to feed on those who cross his path. This movie shatters all stereotypes of the vampire. This creature does not jump from behind bushes only to mutilate one's neck and ferociously bleed his victim dry. This movie demonstrates the truth of the vampire, that like all creatures, including humans, they are emotional, thinkers, intellects, compassionate, lovers, and some even befriend mortals. The vampire Louis, brilliantly portrayed by Brad Pitt, is the central character whose very actions depict a sudden transformation from human to immortal. He must re-evaluate what he deems "evil" and "good" to put into perspective his new found life or death depending upon how you see vampire existence and is remarkably emotional as Rice describes Louis in her novel. Kirsten Dunst is a extraordinary Claudia, a child vampire, who must also come to grips with her immortality as child having been made a vampire as a child, never to mature physically. Tom Cruise, was a brilliant blond, blue-eyed, Lestat, he is the true spoiled brat prince, arrogant vampire as Rice intended him to be. Louis (Pitt), reeks hatred against Lestat (Cruise) for not being able to explain the meaning of their existence as creatures of Dark. This movie is brilliant, complex, intelligent, and destroys the vampire stereotypes. The vampire, having once been mortal, is more human than us all, having lost the luxuries of walking the daylight. A spell-binding journey for the mind. The Vampire Lives.
le 18 mars 2004
"Libera me, Domine, de vitae aeterna" - "Free me, Lord, from eternal life": If a movie begins with a choir and boy soprano singing these words, in a requiem's style and overlaying the camera's sweeping move over nightly San Francisco bay, zooming in on a Victorian building's top-floor window after having followed the life on the street below like a hunter follows its prey - if a movie begins like this, you know you're not looking at your average flick, whatever its subject. (And if the first thing you catch is the Latin phrase's grammatical mistake, this is probably not your kind of movie to begin with).
Much-discussed even before its release, due not least to Anne Rice's temporary withdrawal of support and her no less sensational subsequent 180-degree turn, Neil Jordan's adaptation of the "Vampire Chronicles"' first part, based on Rice's own screenplay, is a sumptuous production awash in luminous colors, magnificent period decor and costumes, rich fabrics, heavy crystal, elegant silverware and gallons of deeply scarlet blood, supremely photographed by Phillippe Rousselot, with a constant undercurrent of sensuality and seduction; an audiovisual orgy substantiated by one of recent film history's most ingenious scores (by Elliot Goldenthal). Although the book only gained notoriety after the publication of its sequel "The Vampire Lestat," followed in short order by the "Chronicles"' third installment, "The Queen of the Damned," by the time this movie was produced, Rice had acquired a large and loyal fan base, who would have been ready to tear it to shreds had it failed to meet their expectations. That this was not unanimously the case is in and of itself testimony to Neil Jordan's considerable achievement (only underscored by the botched 2002 realization of "Queen of the Damned"). Sure, some decry the plot changes vis-a-vis the novel and the fact that some of the protagonists (particularly Louis and Armand) look different from Rice's description. But others have embraced the movie wholeheartedly; praising it for remaining faithful to the fundamentalities of Rice's story and for its production values as such. I find myself firmly in the latter corner; indeed, in some respects I consider this one of the rare movies that are superior to their literary originals - primarily because the story's two main characters, Louis and Lestat, gain considerably in stature and complexity compared to Rice's book.
While both film and novel are narrated by Louis (Brad Pitt), giving an interview to a reporter (Christian Slater) in the hope of achieving some minimal atonement for 200 years of sin and guilt, and while Lestat (Tom Cruise) appears on screen barely half the movie's running time, Lestat is much more of a central character than in Rice's novel; and vastly more interesting. For Anne Rice's Lestat only comes into his own in the "Chronicles"' second part, which is named for him and where we truly learn to appreciate him as the vampire world's aristocratic, arrogant, wicked, intelligent and unscrupulous "brat prince," who although completely lacking regret for any of his actions nevertheless shows occasional glimpses of caring, even if he would never admit thereto. *This*, however, is exactly the movie's Lestat; not the comparatively uninformed and, all things considered, even somewhat brutish creature of Rice's first novel. It is no small feat on Tom Cruise's part to have accomplished this; and in my mind his portrayal has completely eclipsed the character's original conception, which was reportedly based on Rutger Hauer's Captain Navarre in "Ladyhawke."
Similarly, while every bit as guilt-ridden as the character created by Anne Rice, Brad Pitt's Louis regains more inner strength - and more quickly so - than the narrator of Rice's book, rendering him more of an even foil for Lestat, and equally lending greater credibility to his initial selection as Lestat's companion, his actions to ensure his and Claudia's escape to Europe, and his later decision not to stay with Armand. (Indeed, Louis's and Armand's separation after the burning of the Theatre of the Vampires makes perfect sense in the movie's context; it would have undercut both characters', but especially Louis's credibility had they gone on to share years of companionship like in the book.)
Kirsten Dunst's Claudia was not only this movie's biggest discovery - not surprisingly, in an interview included on the DVD Dunst calls this "the most prominent role" of her career so far - she, too, embodies the novel's child vampire to absolute perfection; capturing her eternally childlike features as well as her Lolitaesque seductiveness and the ruthless killer hidden under her doll-like appearance. Doubtlessly furthest from the novel's character is Antonio Banderas's powerful and charismatic Armand: But while I do somewhat miss Rice's auburn-haired "Botticelli angel," I always had a problem imagining him as the leader of the Paris coven, in control even of the quicksilver-like Santiago (marvelously portrayed by Stephen Rea in one of his most overtly theatrical performances). Here, too, the movie - if anything - gives the story greater credibility; although it's admittedly hard to reconcile with parts of the "Chronicles"' later installments, particularly Armand's own biography.
In interviews, Neil Jordan and Brad Pitt particularly have mentioned the emotional strain that this movie put on all its participants; due its almost exclusively nightly shooting schedule, and even more so because of its incessant exploration of guilt, damnation and, literally, hell on earth. Anne Rice's vampires truly are the ultimate outsiders; no longer part of human society, they feed on it, can neither be harmed by sickness nor by methods the world has taken for granted ever since Bram Stoker's "Dracula" (which are in fact merely "the vulgar fictions of a demented Irishman," as Louis explains, simultaneously amused and contemptuous) and are thus, if not killed by fire and/or beheading, condemned to walk the earth forever, without any hope of redemption. It is primarily this element which has given Rice's novels their lasting appeal, and which is perfectly rendered in Jordan's adaptation. I'm still not sure I'd ever want to meet them in person, though ...
le 12 mars 2004
I'm not at Anne Rice fan and I've never read any of her books. I am however of fan of this movie and enjoyed it a lot.
Interview with the Vampire is not a horror movie. It is anything but it. The movie tells us the story of Louis.(Brad Pitt) He's over 200 years old and he's telling his life story to a reporter played by Christian Slater. He's tells us how he became a Vampire from the bite of Lestat(Cruise) and how he hates being what he is. You see the child they have played by Kirsten Dunst. He tells about his good times and his low times. It's a tragic story.
Brad Pitt is great as Louis. You can argue this as the best performance that he as ever made. He holds his own with Tom Cruise. It's a believable performance. You actually think he is the Vampire and he plays the emotions well.
Tom Cruise is simply fantastic. Lestat is a very arrogant character and Tom plays it to perfection. He shows lots of energy and the role is very well acted. Like Pitt he becomes the character and he's no longer Tom Cruise. It's a shame to see "Queen of the Damned" and watch Stuart Townsend play a horrible Lestat.
Kirsten Dunst is great. She's so creepy and scary in the movie. I heard an interview with her a couple of months ago, in which she was mad that she hated the scene in the movie where she gets to kiss Pitt. It's a memorable performance and it's her humble beginning.
I liked Interview with the Vampire. It and "Bram Stokers" are in my opinion the two best vampire movies ever made.
le 26 février 2004
I LOVE this movie sooo much. You see, when you rate a movie that is adapted from a book, you have to look at it from two different perspectives. Interview with The Vampire as a movie was excellent. It was beautifully doet and the director, Neil Jordan, captured the gothic feel and look that the movie was supposed to have. Brad Pitt gave a great performance as the vulnerable and torture fledgling vampire Louis and Kirsten Dunst gave a powerful (yet sometimes sappy) performance. While watching this movie you see that talented actress she has become and will be in the future. TOm Cruise was good in potraying the evil that Lestat is supposed to harbor in his person.
Now rating as an adaptation of the book is aa diffent story. I'm a big Anne RIce fan and I've read ALL of her books. THe writers changed many things that the book didnt have. I won't spoil it and give examples, but it's the truth. Antonio Banderas was miscast as the teenage vampire and ruler Armand. I say they could have done makeup on Louis to make him look more like Louis in the book.
Other thatn those minor difference this is still a winner and I gaurantee you won't be disappointed. THe plot is good, the acting is good and you'll be able to follow the story.
So sit back and enjoy.
le 24 février 2004
This movie was initially a disappointment as it deviated quite a bit from the book by Rice. It totally skipped Lestat's tortured, painful childhood, and missed out on much of the other subtleties that Rice created in the character, turning a three-dimensional, very realistic (given that it's a fantasy creature) character into a stereotype vampire. Frankly, Tom Cruise was totally uninspiring in his role as Lestat such that until the closing scene of the movie I didn't even realise that the part had such 'stellar' casting.
Given the nature of the book and plot, with its chronological timeframe spanning hundreds of years, it's impossible for the movie to be fast-paced as an action flick, as criticized by some reviewers, but I think that in its slower pace it has remained true to the book's Gothic, brooding atmosphere.
Although Brad Pitt does /not/ look the part of Louis (at all!), he has managed to do a wonderful job portraying the adolescent, conflicted vampire and Kirsten Dunst shows her talent in her portrayal of a woman trapped in a child's body, two major redeeming points for the movie.
But perhaps the best touch to the movie, IMO, is the last scene where Lestat regains life. It was this scene which totally revised my opinion of the movie, though it was not in the book. Perhaps because it was so symbolic of the undead's clasping greed for life that is the core of Anne Rice's vampire, the vitality, exuberance and speed as evinced by Lestat and showed such promise for a movie of the next book.
le 7 janvier 2004
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.
le 3 janvier 2004
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.