Intervista col vampiro

'Interview with the Vampire' is an atmospheric, highly gripping "film involving vampires" - not a "vampire movie". Whilst the latter would describe a film that focuses on its vampirism and might be judged on the sharpness of its fangs, this "film involving vampires" has all the merits of the very best cinema, and at its core is nothing but a fantastic story carried by compelling, believable characters.

For those who may not be able to overlook the vampiric content, look again. The vampirism herein is a plot device, a way of presenting characters who cannot die or age or be harmed, so that the philosophical questions of life itself can be explored. But equally, for those who will be interested in the vampiric content, this film presents a rich mythology backed by a trilogy of books, which fleshes out the concept of the vampire in a much deeper way than any other production.

Every person has their own world view, their own way of living and thinking. People can be brooding, contemplative, cautious, reasonable, carefree, hedonistic, optimistic, emotional - and every shade in between. But these are all world-views based on the knowledge that life is short. What would happen if told their lives would never end? Who would be happiest? What would they do? How would eternal life affect each person? And most importantly, if a way of living was bringing meaning to a person's life, would that still work once life was infinite? All of these questions help us explore philosophical ideas as old as time, and that exploration is the focus of this film.

The story is propelled by vampires Louis (Pitt) and Lestat (Cruise), each representing a different take on life. Whilst Louis, who began as a depressive wanting to die, thinks of eternity as an extended curse; Lestat, who seems to live every second as it comes, barely even considers the future three minutes hence. Told from Louis' viewpoint as he struggles to find some meaning in a life he knows will never end, we are taken on a ride across the centuries, as Louis' outlook and happiness undulate whilst characters and relationships come and go.

Alongside Louis' turmoil in coming to terms with his (now eternal) life, a secondary theme is explored, which is the notion of survival. Even though Louis is clearly dissatisfied with life, he never attempts to end it, despite this option being open to him. In other words, surviving, in and of itself, was a motivation that outdid any other. Most importantly, survival outdoes Louis' trouble over the fact that his only source of nourishment is now the blood of living animals, preferably humans. Despite attempting abstinence, and then attempting to drink only the blood of rodents, this basic feeding instinct proves too much for Louis. And yet, as Lestat points out, what is the problem? The fittest always survives, and whoever is lower down the food-chain will be eaten. Humans eat animals, and vampires eat humans - it's all natural. But nonetheless, are there moral limits? Even if you have to kill a human, is there a more moral way to do it? "Monstrous," Louis exclaims, as he watches a group of vampires murder a defenceless girl. Yet might survival require the forgetting of moral consciousness, like Lestat?

'Interview with the Vampire' explores all of these deep, important issues whilst delivering an incredibly powerful story populated by charismatic characters, haunting and diverse settings and immortal dialogue. Gripping from start to finish, you will be enamoured at the vampire-world opened up to you; and by the end, you are left wondering what choice you would have made, given the one that Lestat never had...

Now that some time has passed, Neil Jordon's beautiful work can be watched without obsessing so much over the stars who were involved. 'Interview' is an extravagant assault on the senses, filled with beauty, erotic and graphic violence, and wonderful, at times poetic dialog. To be sure, this is a Hollywood production, but with director Neil Jordon in charge, the film possesses that special "arthouse" film look, with many scenes being too strange and dark to come across as typical Hollywood. Pitt is fine as Louis, the centuries-old vampire who recounts his sad and fascinating history to a nameless "interviewer", played a bit too light by Christian Slater. If you dislike Tom Cruise and his films, as i do, you should not let his participation in the film dissuade you from seeing this; As the sinister Lestat, Cruise is barely recognizable, and gives here, what might be his finest performance. Obviously due to the subject matter, 'Interview' is a relentlessly dark film. There are a few short scenes of daylight in the beginning, until Louis is transformed. Then begins his life of eternal darkness. When I saw this in the theater, the effect of sitting in a darkened room watching a film that takes place entirely at night, really felt strange. Coming out of the theater I felt as though I had been away from the real world for a long time. Jordon's aesthetic vision, supported for once by the huge Hollywood budget, insured that "Interview" looks gorgeous. The plantation that is Louis' first home, and then the Paris apartment are filled with exquisite antiques, ornate furnishings, gold framed mirrors, lace and velvet four-poster beds, etc, transporting the viewer into the 18th and 19th centuries, and lends an extra level of decadence to the lifestyle of these vampires. The costumes as well are breath-taking, and accurate to the time. The finest thing about this production though, is the beautiful, doll-like Claudia, the child-vampire, played by Kirsten Dunst. It is always terrifying and strange when a child is cast in such an evil role. Claudia's thirst for blood exceeds that of Lestat himself, and her total lack of remorse for the people she kills is the most haunting and disturbing thing about this. The approach to her character was very un-Hollywood, thankfully. Anne Rice's book evokes feelings of loneliness and a profound sadness, and those feelings translate well into Jordans film. "Interview With the Vampire" is a very special, and at times superb cinematic delight, that was not ruined by it's over-exposed stars and commercialism. And those that love Gothic horror and period films should see this, and ignore it's Hollywood origins.

Interview with the Vampire is such an unusual horror movie, it stands up incredibly well many years later, it's lavish, decadent and sumptuous. The filming and direction are wonderful, it never fails to impress.

It's a very different style of horror, it has softer tones, and yet it's blood thirsty when needed. The story telling itself is one of the film's major strengths, it's a captivating watch, splitting vampire lust and cravings against a very human element.

Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise are both fantastic, I'd argue it's one of Cruise's best performances, the whole supporting cast are great.

I've watched it many times, I've never once lost interest in it. It's a great watch. 8/10

I, like Anne Rice, was initially dismayed that Tom Cruise had been cast as Lestat. But when I saw the film, I had to admit that he absolutely nailed the role. I had always thought of Cruise as a pretty boy, and not really a serious actor, especially since he failed in his attempt at a Streepian accent in "Far and Away". However, he perfectly portrayed Lestat for what he is, a monster with a monstrous ego. I think that this was the first film I had seen with Brad Pitt, followed shortly by "Legends of the Fall" so to me his acting credentials were impeccable, in spite of my female friends swooning over him. The rest of the cast was excellent as well, with the only minor quibble that Antonio Banderas was too old for the part of Armand. Kirsten Dunst was adorably evil. The cinematography was beautiful, considering that almost all of the film (of course) takes place at night. One note on the supposed "homo-eroticism" in the film. I have the advantage, having read Rice's books, so here is the deal on that. In Rice's world, the vampires are absolutely sexless. Therefore, gender has no meaning to them. When a vampire loves another, or a mortal, it is truly from the heart, as no sexuality of any kind ever enters into it. The only thing to them that is close, is the kill. Killing is highly "erotic" to vampires. However, this too is really asexual, and so again, gender has no bearing on the eroticism of the kill. I think that some elements of this, which apparently came across as homo-eroticism, were included in the screenplay just to emphasize how different, how non-human, that vampires are.

Someone said that this movie was too cerebral for horror fans who live for drivel like "From Dusk 'Till Dawn", and too much of a horror movie for people who look (or at least pretend to look) for meaning in movies -- pseudo-intellectuals. That person couldn't have been more correct. I'm not a horror fan, I'm not an Anne Rice fan...I'm not even fond of Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, and Antonio Banderas. But Interview With a Vampire was a movie that excelled my expectations.

I refused to see this film for 3 years because I believed it would be what I perceived it to be: glitzy Hollywood garbage geared toward adolescent girls with posters of the 3 main actors all over their walls. I finally broke down and rented it, and I was astonished by the incredible performances delivered, the thrilling dialogue and the way it was delivered by the actors, the scenery, the plot, the score...everything. I never thought that Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise could act, but their performances made their unbelievable characters a reality. However, the true star of the film was Kirsten Dunst. At 12 years old, this girl was able to hold her own against her co-stars, and often stole the scene (particularly the incident in which Claudia tries to cut her hair and subsequently Lestat discovers the corpse in her bed.)

You don't want to look for the meaning of life in this movie. It's a story. The plot is basically the history of a vampire's life, and I don't understand why people are compelled to trash a movie because of its simplicity. Look at the title. That's all it is, and if you expect more you're setting yourself up for disappointment. It's not the deepest of movies, that's why it should be enjoyed for the intense dialogue and the great production that went into it. Others trash the movie because of its homoerotic undertones. This aspect is so fleeting that it's ridiculous to dwell on it, and if you dwell on such an insignificant aspect of the movie then you were obviously looking for something to bother you. One additional thing: to even suggest that the violence in this film could be responsible for incidents such as the Columbine High School killings is beyond moronic.

This isn't the greatest movie that has ever been made, it's certainly not a complex analysis of life, or a parable with a moral dictating the enjoyment of life. It's a brilliantly produced gothic tale of a vampire, nothing more and nothing less. In respect to the book, I've never read it and I don't particularly care to read it. But for all of you who have been complaining about the movie not living up to the novel, here's a clue that might prove useful in the future: the book is ALWAYS better than the film. Don't waste your time complaining about something that is understood.