Interview with the Vampire
(A- or 3.5/4 stars)
Want some gothic horror? Throw in Tom Cruise & Brad Pitt and you've got quite the interesting mix. 'Interview with the Vampire', directed by Neil Jordan & written by author Ann Rice, begins & ends in present day San Francisco, with Louis de Pointe du Lac (Pitt), a 224 yr. old vampire imparting his epic story of love, deceit, loneliness, & hunger to a fascinated journalist, Daniel Malloy (Christian Slater). Louis' tale opens in 1791 on a Louisiana plantation, where he grieves the loss of his wife during childbirth. Having lost his will to go on (& heavily drinking), Louis is happened upon by the vampire Lestat De Lioncourt (Cruise), & is asked if he wants to become a creature of the night. Given a choice btwn. death & eternal life (as the undead), Louis chooses the undead, a decision he'll regret forever.
Louis then learns the ways of a vampire from Lestat. But all is not well. You see, to quell his hunger, Louis must feed. The blood of animals simply isn't enough, & he loathes killing humans. So, Lestat devises a plan that will keep Louis around: he pierces the neck of a grief-stricken young girl named Claudia (Kirsten Dunst), & then curses her with a blasphemous form of resurrection so that the 2 men can be her surrogate fathers. I know: sick, right? For a while, they act as a happy family, of sorts. But all things must come to an end, & Claudia's growing resentment of her immortal 'fathers' (particularly Lestat) manifests in a bloody conclusion. Think about it: how would you like to live with the same people for centuries?
Boy am I happy that the Grand Guignol genre is back: we've had 1992's Dracula (Francis Ford Coppola), Wolf (Mike Nichols), & Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (Kenneth Branagh). 'Interview with the Vampire' isn't the most emotionally stirring or narratively propulsive film, but it's still an ambitious movie that gets more things right than wrong. When the film is good, it's firing on all cylinders; there are many segments I was thoroughly engrossed in (particularly in the 1st hour - classic horror). And the gothic atmosphere - which is ESSENTIAL in this type of film - is fantastic. There are some turgid moments that took me out of the picture; including dialogue-heavy stretches & a strange ending. But again, the overall outweighs the weak spots.
If 'Interview ...' wanted to go really dark, really freaky, & really ambitious, however ... it would have included more of the erotic, sexual undercurrent that's so prevalent in vampire stories. While there is the Electra Complex (Claudia's unconscious longing for her fathers), & some sexual innuendo (btwn. Louis & Lestat), it needed to be bolstered up. Hell, you cast 2 of the world's hottest male celebrities in Tom Cruise & Brad Pitt ... might as well goes balls to the wall with the homoeroticism component & create something really worth seeing. That said, commercially, there's only so much a studio would be 'willing' to show.
Tom Cruise's portrayal as Lestat isn't consistent. At times, he is superb; other times, he lacks the mystery & nuance required of the role; looking merely like Tom Cruise in macabre make-up and fangs. Regardless, he's a commanding presence onscreen, as always. Faring a bit better, surprisingly, is Brad Pitt; perhaps because the structure of the narrative makes us sympathize with him more so. Kirsten Dunst acquits herself very well in the young teen vampire role. She's very believable. She even upstages Cruise & Pitt, at times. And supporting turns by Christian Slater, Stephen Rea, & Antonio Banderas (as an old vampire named Armand) also hold up well. I only wish there had been a strong human character for us to relate to.
Neil Jordan's direction is as sumptuous & strange as his last film (The Crying Game). The script can't be scrutinized too much as Anne Rice just took straight from her novel. And the technical work is incredible. The haunting cinematography (by Philippe Rousselot), eerie settings, elegant 18th century period details, make-up work (by Stan Winston), effects, & musical score all lend to the atmosphere I mentioned earlier. Overall, 'Interview ...' is just a sophisticated, wonderful-to-look-at horror story that could have benefited from a stronger plot and some tighter editing, but is imaginative & compelling enough to warrant high praise.
Louis then learns the ways of a vampire from Lestat. But all is not well. You see, to quell his hunger, Louis must feed. The blood of animals simply isn't enough, & he loathes killing humans. So, Lestat devises a plan that will keep Louis around: he pierces the neck of a grief-stricken young girl named Claudia (Kirsten Dunst), & then curses her with a blasphemous form of resurrection so that the 2 men can be her surrogate fathers. I know: sick, right? For a while, they act as a happy family, of sorts. But all things must come to an end, & Claudia's growing resentment of her immortal 'fathers' (particularly Lestat) manifests in a bloody conclusion. Think about it: how would you like to live with the same people for centuries?
Boy am I happy that the Grand Guignol genre is back: we've had 1992's Dracula (Francis Ford Coppola), Wolf (Mike Nichols), & Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (Kenneth Branagh). 'Interview with the Vampire' isn't the most emotionally stirring or narratively propulsive film, but it's still an ambitious movie that gets more things right than wrong. When the film is good, it's firing on all cylinders; there are many segments I was thoroughly engrossed in (particularly in the 1st hour - classic horror). And the gothic atmosphere - which is ESSENTIAL in this type of film - is fantastic. There are some turgid moments that took me out of the picture; including dialogue-heavy stretches & a strange ending. But again, the overall outweighs the weak spots.
If 'Interview ...' wanted to go really dark, really freaky, & really ambitious, however ... it would have included more of the erotic, sexual undercurrent that's so prevalent in vampire stories. While there is the Electra Complex (Claudia's unconscious longing for her fathers), & some sexual innuendo (btwn. Louis & Lestat), it needed to be bolstered up. Hell, you cast 2 of the world's hottest male celebrities in Tom Cruise & Brad Pitt ... might as well goes balls to the wall with the homoeroticism component & create something really worth seeing. That said, commercially, there's only so much a studio would be 'willing' to show.
Tom Cruise's portrayal as Lestat isn't consistent. At times, he is superb; other times, he lacks the mystery & nuance required of the role; looking merely like Tom Cruise in macabre make-up and fangs. Regardless, he's a commanding presence onscreen, as always. Faring a bit better, surprisingly, is Brad Pitt; perhaps because the structure of the narrative makes us sympathize with him more so. Kirsten Dunst acquits herself very well in the young teen vampire role. She's very believable. She even upstages Cruise & Pitt, at times. And supporting turns by Christian Slater, Stephen Rea, & Antonio Banderas (as an old vampire named Armand) also hold up well. I only wish there had been a strong human character for us to relate to.
Neil Jordan's direction is as sumptuous & strange as his last film (The Crying Game). The script can't be scrutinized too much as Anne Rice just took straight from her novel. And the technical work is incredible. The haunting cinematography (by Philippe Rousselot), eerie settings, elegant 18th century period details, make-up work (by Stan Winston), effects, & musical score all lend to the atmosphere I mentioned earlier. Overall, 'Interview ...' is just a sophisticated, wonderful-to-look-at horror story that could have benefited from a stronger plot and some tighter editing, but is imaginative & compelling enough to warrant high praise.