Interview with the Vampire - Dark Publications

Location: Home » video » General » Interview with the Vampire

Similar Items:

•	Queen of the Damned (Widescreen Edition)
•	The Lost Boys
•	Bram Stoker's Dracula (Collector's Edition)
•	Incredible Hulk (Widescreen Edition)
•	Beetlejuice (20th Anniversary Deluxe Edition)

Editorial Reviews:

Amazon.com essential video
When it was announced that Tom Cruise would play the vampire Lestat in this adaptation of Anne Rice's bestselling novel, even Rice chimed in with a highly publicized objection. The author wisely and justifiably recanted her negative opinion when she saw Cruise's excellent performance, which perceptively addresses the pain and chronic melancholy that plagues anyone cursed with immortal bloodlust. Brad Pitt and Kirsten Dunst are equally good at maintaining the dark and brooding tone of Rice's novel. And in this rare mainstream project for a major studio, director Neil Jordan compensates for a lumbering plot by honoring the literate, Romantic qualities of Rice's screenplay. Considered a disappointment while being embraced by Rice's loyal followers, the movie is too slow to be a satisfying thriller, but it is definitely one of the most lavish, intelligent horror films ever made. --Jeff Shannon

Customer Reviews: Read 380 more reviews...

5 out of 5 stars

Dies Irae, Dies Doloris ... March 18, 2004
92 out of 107 found this review helpful

"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 ...

Also recommended:
Complete Vampire Chronicles (Interview with the Vampire, The Vampire Lestat, The Queen of the Damned, The Tale of the body Thief)
The Vampire Companion
Ladyhawke
Bram Stoker's Dracula (Collector's Edition)

4 out of 5 stars

A Haunting, Erotic Treat June 11, 2000
79 out of 96 found this review helpful

I haven't cared very much for Anne Rice's recent books, but her earlier work was outstanding. I loved "Interview" in particular, so I was really looking forward to this movie. There is always a risk in adapting such a vivid and powerful-not to mention beloved-book into a film. Director Neil Jordan and his collaborators have succeeded marvelously, though. This is an exciting, engaging film; remarkably faithful to Rice's original text.

The story opens in present day San Francisco. Louis (Brad Pitt), a 200 year-old vampire, is telling his life story to an interviewer (Christian Slater), who is shocked by his supernatural revelation. "I am flesh and blood," Louis tells him, "but not human."

His story takes us back to late 18th century New Orleans where Louis first encountered the Vampire Lestat (Tom Cruise). Desiring a companion, and in love with his beautiful looks, Lestat gives Louis the "Dark Gift"-that is, he makes him into a vampire. They live together for many years, roaming the streets at night, united by their common quest for blood.

Eventually, though, Lestat fears that Louis is going to leave him. Desperate, he makes a vampire of Claudia (Kirsten Dunst), a beautiful young child, knowing the Louis would never leave the girl. Thus they are bonded together as "one big, happy family." As it turns out, though, they are not so happy after all.

The story takes the vampires to Paris, where they finally encounter some more of their own kind. The coven of vampires is led by the stunningly handsome Armand (Antonio Banderas) who quickly falls in love with Louis. Louis is enamored of him as well, but he will never leave little Claudia, something Armand realizes.

The film ends back in the present in a departure from Rice's book. The new twist is exciting, though, and sets up the story for an inevitable sequel. It hasn't been made yet, but if it ever is, I'm looking forward to it.

The big question, of course, is, how is Tom Cruise as Lestat? In one word: brilliant. This is one of his best performances ever, heightened by the fact that he is playing a role so different from his typical screen persona. Cruise has always been an underrated actor, but hopefully that will start to change after people see him here. He is terrific.

The rest of the performances are also quite good. Brad Pitt does very well as the tortured, guilt-ridden Louis. Antonio Banderas is extraordinary as the seductive, young master of darkness. His is the most convincing portrayal of a vampire, filled with power and charisma.

Neil Jordan's direction is top-notch. Visually, "Vampire" is stunning, helped considerably by Dante Ferretti's superb production design. Anyone who has read the book-and anyone who has not-is sure to enjoy this haunting, erotic treat.

5 out of 5 stars Darkly satisfying...... August 20, 2001
40 out of 44 found this review helpful

Let me begin by saying that I have not read the book and am judging the movie solely on its own merits. "Interview with the Vampire" is a luscious, guilty pleasure of modern filmmaking, visually resplendent and with wonderful performances by all (including Christian Slater, Antonio Banderas and Stephen Rea). It follows the adventures of Louis de Pont du Lac (Brad Pitt), a 200-year-old vampire hailing from Louisiana, as he recounts the story of his life (and unlife) to interviewer Daniel Malloy (Christian Slater). Along the way we meet his maker Lestat de Lioncourt (Tom Cruise), his "daughter" Claudia (Kirsten Dunst), and Armand (Antonio Banderas), leader of the Parisian vampires.

Tom Cruise, in my mind, perfectly portrays the elder vampire Lestat...beautiful, cunning, selfish, a seducer, many of the same qualities present in Armand, and possesses an excess of dark humour. Brad Pitt's Louis still clings to the last shreds of his humanity...his sense of right and wrong, the value of life, the horror of killing in order to survive (angstmaster Nick Knight from "Forever Knight" springs to mind). There is a lack of onscreen romantic tension between Cruise and Pitt...something that makes their relationship seem less immediate and binding. However, there is definitely a spark between Louis and Armand (Antonio Banderas), and it was easy to believe that Louis was tempted to stay as a companion to such an intelligent, beautiful vampire who could teach him the answers to his questions. Kirsten Dunst is phenomenal as Claudia, the vampire with the mind and desires of a woman eternally trapped in the body of a doll-child.

The visuals are lavish, moody, stunningly brilliant, especially the world of 1800's New Orleans with its brocades, silks, and elaborate dresses. The atmosphere is appropriately dark, with plenty of fog and menacing nighttime damp. Elliot Goldenthal's score is string-driven, pulsing, tense, and underscores the action perfectly, the crowning piece being "Libera Me".

Yes, this film is graphic at times, including two very graphic scenes involving mutilation, numerous "feedings," homoeroticism, and brief nudity, but "Interview with the Vampire" is an unconventional drama that probes the meaning of life, death, love, seduction, and regret. More than anything Anne Rice's vampires make us realize the conventions and trappings of humanity.

4 out of 5 stars Best vampire movie ever made March 11, 2000
17 out of 19 found this review helpful

As an Anne Rice fan, I thought this movie was very well done, even though they did change certain things from the book version and left some things out. I thought all of the actors did an excellent job. Antonio was quite unlike the Armand in the book, but I still thought he did a great job of portraying Armand's dark, manipulative, and seductive side. Tom Cruise was terrific at portraying the cocky, yet charismatic, Lestat, and Brad and Kirsten were excellent as Louis and Claudia. The scenery was fantastic and really made me feel like I was seeing New Orleans as it was back in those days. The costumes were all beautiful and the make-up job on the vampires was great. I love Rice's vampires because they are completely different than any others we have known, such as Dracula and Nosferatu. I love them for their "human-ness" and the way that they are really not all that different from us. For as Anne Rice says, the movie isn't really about vampires. It's really about us. I love the part at the beginning when Louis is in the bar exchanging words with another man, and the camera moves upward to the top of the stairs. We see Lestat's left hand resting on the railing, as he quietly watches the goings-on below. We immediately know what he is thinking. Then, moments later, when Louis is walking with the prostitute, we see Lestat suddenly appear there watching them as they pass on by. That was great! My only real disappointment was at the end when Lestat ends up with Daniel (Christian Slater) in his car. I'm sorry they didn't stick to the book's ending, instead of drastically changing it to something totally different. I also thought Louis' time with Armand would have been interesting to watch. I really love the soundtrack, with its dark, yet beautiful melodies. Libera Me is just haunting. Whenever I drive to San Francisco, I make sure to play it as I drive over the bridge! This is one of my most favorite films. What can I say except, "I want some more!"

5 out of 5 stars Take it from Anne: David Geffen produced this work. April 10, 2005
15 out of 20 found this review helpful

This is the author talking. The film is shattering. For me, and of course I lack objectivity, it is The Red Shoes of Horror Films. It got my book, it got my script, and the person responsible was the producer David Geffen. He is the one who drew together the finest talent in every field to do this film. He asked me to write the screen play. Was I part of "the finest talent?" I hope so. He is the one who sent me a video of the film even though I objected to casting and might have screamed. I loved it. I called him to tell him. When he sent a print of the film to New Orleans for a private viewing for me and my family and friends, I was so overwhelmed by this picture that I came out of it crying helplessly in the arms of my editor Victoria Wilson. I stood there sobbing, holding onto Vicky, as the whole crowd of concerned people looked on. I couldn't snap out of it. I went out, got in the back of my car, and was driven home. The film took me back to the night I finished the book -- 4 a.m. in the morning in the year 1973 -- in Berkeley, California, in a shabby ground floor apartment full of junk shop furniture, a beautiful place, where I sat on the couch utterly overwhelmed by the experience of "the novel," a coherence that had come out of me -- vowing to myself that if no one published it, I'd sell it out of shopping bag to people on the street. The film took me back even further, into the soul that had exposed itself in the writing. Darkness. No grace. No salvation. The film got it. It got "the glamor of evil" and that darkness, that hopelessness, that despair. It is -- and I say this now as a film buff -- a great film. Forget me. Forget the book. It's a piece of sublime work in which genius "happened" as it can in film when great directors like Neil Jordan, and great actors, and great professional on all levels are giving it everything that they can -- when they have but one goal and that is to be true to something in which the author was true to himself or herself. It worked. It's magic. And now ten years later people are discovering it. They are sharing that sublime vision. I'm thankful; I'm happy; I'm proud to have been part of it. I'm grateful. And I hope David Geffen knows. I hope he knows how the world values that film. He did that. I hope he's proud. Anne Rice, Paradise West, California

Powered by Associate-O-Matic

T-shirts, Posters

Pentagram T-shirts, bags, etc...

Gothic Posters