Login
"Your body's dying. Pay no attention, It happens to us all."
Vampire horror movies have fascinated me since I first viewed the mother of the genre: that is, F.W. Murnau's Nosferatu. Many have tried but never gotten close to the originality and brilliance of the 1922 German silent picture based on Bram Stoker's Dracula.
With this film, Interview with the Vampire is based on a series of novels by Anne Rice (who also wrote the screenplay for the film). The novels and film alike were widely acclaimed by critics and audience. Unfortunately for me, when I at long last saw this movie I couldn't understand all the ruckus.
The film opens as we are introduced to two characters; one is a radio show host named Daniel (Slater) and the other is a mysterious figure named Louis (Pitt). Louis claims that he is an actual vampire and chooses to share his life story with Daniel.
Naturally, at first Daniel is reluctant to believe Louis' declaration of being a member of the undead. But after a quick demonstration Louis then proceeds to tell his epic tale of love, betrayal, loneliness and hunger; his life of living death that never ends.
A bulk of the story takes place during the 18th Century. Louis is bitten by a vampire named Lestat (Cruise) who becomes his mentor. Initially Louis' attitude towards vampiric activities is negative; but his life is never the same when Lestat brings young Claudia (Dunst) into the equation.
At the outset I thought this film had massive potential to be the next great vampire movie. The acting can't be faulted and the attention to detail is unbelievably meticulous; featuring some gorgeous production design and authentic costumes. But the film is very hard to get into. We're just thrown into a world without knowing anything about the characters. The opening introduction just wasn't enough character development before launching into the story. And throughout the film the filmmakers failed to frequently remind us that it's just a character telling a story. Very rarely do we cut back to the hotel, and too infrequently do we hear voice-over narration.
After the first 50 minutes the film becomes unnecessarily relentless. Things begin getting dull and bleak. And then the film keeps dragging on; becoming increasingly boring. Maybe people who are besotted with vampires could overlook the shallow screenplay.
Like I stated previously, the performances are almost impossible to fault. Tom Cruise sparked controversy when he was cast in the role of Lestat. It took a little while for vampiric Cruise to sink in. He gives it everything he can, but I don't feel that he was right for the role. In fact I find Cruise completely miscast. He has his moments, though.
Brad Pitt shows great versatility in his performance. When his character is an experienced member of the vampire race he is wooden but chilling. His make-up really assisted in this aspect. Back in the 18th Century he seems very reluctant to carry out the duties of a vampire. He expresses emotion quite well while playing this side of his character.
Kirsten Dunst beguiled audiences with a performance that belies her years. The film needed a young actress who could display a range of emotions for different situations. Dunst nailed the role of tragic young Claudia.
The director failed to an extent because the film couldn't engage me. The acting was great but the images were quite dull throughout the movie. The gore is inexorable when the occasion calls for it. Apart from the gory scenes the film had nothing going for it. The drama seemed shallow and is staged appallingly. Maybe if the dialogue was a bit more fascinating (looking at the screenwriter for this flaw) then the film could have been a lot better.
Interview with the Vampire had potential that was spoilt in its execution. Apart from some creative ideas, intriguing imagery and stellar performances the film has little else to offer. Followed by Queen of the Damned.
6/10
