Interview with the Vampire - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Interview with the Vampire Reviews

Page 1 of 1045
Super Reviewer
½ December 28, 2010
A gloomy romantic vampire story that is well directed and has an elegant dialogue and a sensual Gothic atmosphere that makes us want to know more and more about those dark creatures. Still, the film suffers from some serious miscasting - except for Dunst, who is pretty good.
Super Reviewer
½ June 15, 2014
Action-packed from first to last. Tom Cruise is so good at being a psycho. How did we not see this earlier??
Super Reviewer
½ December 8, 2006
A vampire from born in New Orleans in the 18th century tells the tale of his life to an incredulous reporter. Anne Rice's own adaptation of her novel is quite literary which tempers the melodrama to give it quite a theatrical feel, added to by a good supporting cast; Tom Cruise actually gives one of his more characterful performances and is clearly enjoying himself as the rakish Lestat. It's obviously mainly about the eye candy and gothic romanticism for the benefit of the ladies, but there is also some great period detail and interesting themes running through it; particularly the eternal child and links between voyeurism and violence. A VERY young Kirsten Dunst gives a mature performance as Louie's unwilling child/love although I felt Banderas' character was underused. It's brooding, atmospheric and has a nice line in black but playful humour and is far superior to the vast majority of it's many, many copycats.
Super Reviewer
July 18, 2007
Before the Twilight series Anne Rice had had own concoction of the beasts of bloodsucking terror turned, transformed, into suave gents making the best of a bad world. Maybe every generation needs one of their own gentleman cannibals. The true horror depicted here is living forever as a major drag. Cruise and Pitt suffer for us the ignominy of unbearable handsomeness.
Super Reviewer
July 5, 2009
Drink From Me And Live Forever

Not the great movie I thought it was gonna be.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.

It hadn't even been a year since a plantation owner named Louis had lost his wife in childbirth. Both his wife and the infant died, and now he has lost his will to live. A vampire named Lestat takes a liking to Louis and offers him the chance to become a creature of the night: a vampire. Louis accepts, and Lestat drains Louis' mortal blood and then replaces it with his own, turning Louis into a vampire. Louis must learn from Lestat the ways of the vampire.
Super Reviewer
½ May 29, 2007
Why is this movie so long? Things I liked: Kirsten Dunst's angelic little face, Brad Pitt's hot bod, the creative way some of these people die, the sometimes internal conflict that Louie managed to convey. Things I did not like: Tom Cruise, vampires.
Super Reviewer
May 12, 2011
Lestat: Evil is a point of view. God kills indiscriminately and so shall we. For no creatures under God are as we are, none so like him as ourselves.†

"Drink From Me And Live Forever"

Interview With the Vampire is a decent vampire film, but it definitely has its problems. Two of which are Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt. Don't get me wrong I like them both, but they seem so out of place in a film like this. I was able to get used to their presence, but it seemed all wrong. Interview With the Vampire, for lack of a better word, is a mess. Neil Jordan went for a big, sweeping vampire film; and while he didn't completely fail, he didn't succeed either. I like the idea of telling the story of a vampire from his beginning go where he is at the point of the interview, but in the end, it was really unsatisfying.†

The story of Louis is told through an interview. We are told that Louis was made a vampire by Lestat. Sooner or later, Lestat makes another family member for them out of a girl that Louis nearly killed. The little girl is played perfectly by Kirsten Dunst. As far as a plot goes, there isn't much going on, which is another of the films problems. It's mostly three vampires walking around finding people to kill and screaming at each other for making them the way they are or for not being a worthy vampire. It's interesting for awhile, but sooner or later the initial thrill wears a little thin.

I still refrain from saying the movie is worthless because it is at times breathtaking. The production value speaks for itself. The film, from that vantage point, is beautiful. It looks good, it sounds good. There's great atmosphere in many of the scenes. It's all there, ripe to be amazing. That is what is so disappointing about it. It's not amazing. Some think this is a genre defining film and I just don't see it.†

Still, well worth a look though. It may sound like I hate the movie, but I really don't. In fact, I would say I'm closer to liking it then I am to hating it. I just think this had the chance to be up there with Coppola's Dracula in the vampire genre.†
Super Reviewer
½ August 8, 2007
This is a tricky one, the whole vampire life story is amazing, charting history through the eyes of a vampire. The design is extremely well created and has a classic lavish feel about it all the way through, seeing vampires across different countries and periods is also very cool.
There maybe too many big names in it for my liking, a little too much 'Hollywood gloss' perhaps, should of had some more unknowns or classic actors really. Gorgeous to watch though and with a haunting soundtrack its quite beautiful, a work of art in places, a little flawed in others, the film isn't suppose to be very faithful to the original source but I can't compare that.

A curious mix of an elegant classic gothic period romance with an almost rock n roll glitzy twist to it, but I can't deny it does work very well.
Super Reviewer
August 20, 2011
Vampires have always been something of a guilty pleasure of mine sense I can remember. What don‚(TM)t you like about them? They take centuries old myths revolving the Catholic faith and makes them pure horror, they have immortal life, and they are the true lords of night. But, overtime, the vampire image has been destroyed, distraught, and bastardize so much that vampires turned from complete creatures of terror into human‚(TM)s ultimate wet dreams by wanting to make the vampires sexually appealing. I am sorry, but that is not how I want my vampires to be. But, there are some exceptions to this. One of which is the novel by Anne Rice known as: Interview With The Vampire. Being her first novel, it is something of a complete shock of pure and wonderous imagination as we get a first hand glimpse into the life of a vampire through the eyes of Louis (portrayed in the film by Brad Pitt) and his 200 year life of horror as he sees, feels, and experiences idea that we can only imagine. The novel was a giant success that created, what I call, the third wave of vampire fiction, basically being the new Dracula in terms of how successful and how much it is embedded into pop culture. My first experience with this film was when I was first introduced to vampires when I was younger. Due to a sudden rush of vampire love across the world, vampires were brought back to life in the minds of people and became the subject of much love and commercial success as people tried to catch on to the world of vampires. I was and still am one of those people that feel in love with vampires. But what made me become the fan that I am on these creatures was this one movie. While watching this film, I felt something of a new era of my life opening up and an entire new world being explored. Just, the visual aspects of this film are brought to life in such a wonderous way that you become entranced in the pure beauty of this tale. And entranced I was as this became one of the finest films on the subjects of real vampires that I have ever seen. My heart was captivated by this film and still when I watch it or listen to the score, I feel the world of new wonder open up. I love this film, but while I love it, there are a few aspects that I will discuss that I do not particularly care for. But more on that later. Let‚(TM)s get down to the details. The first will have to be the direction of Neil Jordan. Being well known for his work on ‚~The Crying Game‚(TM), I did not know what to expect with this film. But, to my surprise, Jordan treats the original source material with pure respect and honesty as he makes two centuries‚(TM) worth of history and crams it all into a two hour film. The only complaint I have is that the pacing he has with this film is rather slow at times and that is something of a bummer to me. I like films that keep a steady pace and makes you be interested. This film has the interesting part right. But the pace, not so much. Like all films, the second time around it is faster, but I would of liked it if it was more faster and more speedy. Next the acting. Okay, if you are a mega fan of actors/ actresses that were huge and popular in the 1990‚(TM)s, then this is your film all the way. So, I might as well get down to the five main actors. First off is Brad Pitt. Now, I am not that much of a Brad Pitt fan. Yeah, later on down the road he gave a monumental performance in Quentin Tarantino‚(TM)s INGLORIOUS BASTERDS, but other then that, I never really cared for him. But with this one film, I am ready to say that I love him as an actor. The character of Louis is tragic in the sense that he has had an entire world of misfortune happen to him and he tries to live on, but he does so in a way that is unimaginable towards anyone. It is with his acting, how he is able to get across the feel of experiencing things like drinking blood for the first time, the creation of a child vampire, that makes this movie work. Next for Tom Cruise. Now, I adore Tom Cruise‚(TM)s acting from his performance in Ridley Scott‚(TM)s LEGEND to his performance in Stanley Kubrick‚(TM)s EYES WIDE SHUT. He is a fine actor and, unlike Anne Rice when she first heard, I was open to him being in this role. When he portrayed the vampire Lestat, he literally stole the entire film. This movie is meant to be about Louis, but Lestat just makes everything about him and you start to care about this anti-hero as he lives out his life. With Cruise‚(TM)s acting, he gives a wonderful performance and one that is memorable. Very much well done. The next person to mention was a then very much unknown Kristen Dunst as the vampire child Claudia. Now, let me explain something about this character. She is an eternal child, but has the aging mind of a woman. She is a complex, emotionally angered character that, at first, never understand what she is due to how young she was when she first became a vampire. Once she finds out, she becomes one of the most interesting and most furious of characters that I have seen in a vampire film that is a vampire. Dunst was at a very young age to play this young vampire, and she does so with wonderous ability. This film is a testimony to the fact that she can act. Next on the list is Antonio Banderas who portrays Armand: The Oldest Vampire In The World. While appearing in the second half of the film, Banderas does give a performance that I wish could have been expanded more. Banderas is a fine actor, and it is something of a shame that he is not put into more use in this film. But for the parts he is in for, he is great. Lastly, the only other actor is the interviewer: Christian Slater. Slater, I think, had the most difficult role in this entire film not because of who the character is (appears for only twenty minutes spread through out the film), but because of who was suppose to play his character. Originally, teen icon River Phoenix was slated to portray the interviewer, but due to his untimely death, Slater was brought in. For the most part, he does his job how it needed to be done, but I would of liked it if he was able to show off more of his acting abilities. Now we head for the script. One thing that fans of novels hate is when their favorite novels are adapted into film due to how much is changed. While this film‚(TM)s script does differ from her novel, Anne Rice does write the script to her novel in a rather interesting way. I do like how she changed some of the key parts in the story to fit the film, but there are some certain details I wished she would of kept in. Ms. Rice is a fabulous writer, and this being her only screen play, she does show a lot of talent. But, one has to wonder what would of happened if someone else was to have adapted the screen play? Would it still keep Rice‚(TM)s tone or would it have been shattered? Finally the score. I love film scores to no end and this film can be credited as to being one of the films that started my love for film‚(TM)s music. From the opening choir piece that is haunting yet beautiful to a wonderful cover of the Rolling Stone‚(TM)s song Sympathy For The Devil (covered by a then good Guns N Roses), this score just creates the dark atmosphere and the feeling of loneliness that the film tries to have and it works. But the one piece that needs to be mentioned is the opening piece Libera Me. There is a way to tell if a film will be good and that has to be how great the first piece of music is at setting the tone. Hearing the dark, a tad bit depressing piano and the voices of children that are featured in that piece of music, it just creates a world unlike any other. Now, the score was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Original Score, but lost out to The Lion King that year. Pity. For the visuals in this film, it is simply outstanding. Even more when the film is set in Paris and we see the underground vampire cults that are there. What makes this so note worthy is just how magnificent it looks. The time spent on those sets to create them must have taken back breaking amounts of work, and for the effect it has, I say it was worth it. That is the thing about this film: it is all about effect and story. Effect of how we feel about the characters. Effect about the music. Effect about the sets. The effect level on this film is high and it is then easy to understand why this film is considered great. The plot, also, is something of a wonder. Just the imagination it took to create this world is just magnificent and still is today when we are bombarded with countless knock off vampires that are just disgraceful. Overall, this is probably one of the last great vampire films ever made and an ultimate introduction into the wonderful world of vampires that can only be created by Anne Rice.
Super Reviewer
September 6, 2010
The best new vampire movie, based on the popular novel by Anne Rice. This movie has an all star cast, a big budget, and special effects, but it doesn't overdo it all. The story is beautiful and brilliant, and all vampire fans should see this movie.
Super Reviewer
January 12, 2008
Somehow I have avoided seeing this one until now. I knew very little about it, except it was based on an Anne Rice book (and I have long ago tried to read a few of her books and really not gotten into them, so I can understand how I was not especially excited to see this movie - especially considering it stars two of my least favourite and over-rated male stars - Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt).
Anyhow, I find that I have been leant this movie by someone who insists I will love it, based on the fact I don't mind Twilight (hmmmm)... so I sat down to watch it finally.
What can I say - first 40 minutes or so had me bored crapless. Tom Cruise as vile as ever, Brad Pitt not too excruciating, but still far from a favourite - and then the poodle killings happen. Not a way to get me to warm to a movie!
Luckily (or unluckily, since it meant I ended up watching this movie in it's entirety instead of switching off as I might have), things pick up a little with the appearance of Kirsten Dunst.
I had, over the years, heard much about this kiss with Brad Pitt, so I was surprised to see it was really just a fairly chaste peck - she is, after all, clearly a child here.
Sadly, once Kirsten is no longer in the movie, (I won't reveal what happens so as not to spoil it for anyone who hasn't seen this), it falls back down to boring again. Christian Slater is a small saving grace for it, but he is not in it frequently enough to make it worthwhile.
I think it is a movie a lot of people will love as it is very dark, but for me a movie I would only watch once.
Super Reviewer
½ March 2, 2011
Original and fun, but a bit cliche and creepy
Super Reviewer
February 4, 2011
Do the vampires in this movie actually have sex with other vampires, or even occasionally with humans? Because they only seem to get-off breathing over each other's faces.

There's a lot of gayish, florid hokiness at times, when they're dashing around what looks like a cheap set with some expensive things on it. The murky soft-focus medium shots in those scenes didn't make the atmosphere look less cheap.

I liked how the movie treated the various possibilities of vampire death and alluded to vampire suicidal depression. To be eternally or not to be eternally, that was the question. Should've asked it more.
Super Reviewer
½ June 9, 2006
It's been a while since I saw this (or read the book), but I kind of feel that this is pretty much on par with the source material. There are some differences, but it definitely helps that Anne Rice penned both this and the book.

As far as a vampire movie goes, I really like this onebecause the lore and the world are established quite well, and things are handled in a great way. This is an eerie, atmospheric gothic chiller that is great to look at, and makes nods to the past, but still has enough sex appeal and violence to bring it u to speed with conteporary cinema.

Tom Cruise may be a joke now, but he gives an okay performance here (even though it's a little hammy). Brad Pitt is pretty good as the tortured Louis, but for me, I really like Kirsten Dunst as the chilling yet alluring Claudia. Too bad very few (if any) of her later performances got to the level of the one she gives here.

Besides having a good story, great writing, strong direction, and decent perforamcnes, the real stars here are the set design, art direction, and the costumes. This is a period piece costume drama that rocks, and I highly recommend it.
Super Reviewer
June 21, 2010
Two things this movie taught me:
A) Tom Cruise cannot pull off long hair.
B) Brad Pitt should not have long hair.
Other than that, it was very pretty and only kinda gorey. I also loved Kirsten Dunst's performance. Awesome spoiled brat. Antonio Banderas was a tad creepy looking that pale, it's just not natural on him. Also, I've never read the books, but the plot followed well and I know it's a part of a series, so good twist ending there. And I am a sucker for dark films and pretty dresses, so there's a big plus.
Super Reviewer
June 9, 2010
Interview with The Vampire is one of the most intriguing vampire films ever made. Based on Anne Rice's novel of the same name, Interview With The Vampire is a beautiful tale of horror. Told on screen by director Neil Jordon, this film is exquisite in every sense of the word. Tom Cruise is amazing in his performance as Lestat and so is is Brad Pitt in his performance as Louis. This film is a dramatic departure from the traditional vampire flick. The film still boasts enough gore to keep the traditional horror fans interested, but be warned this is not traditional horror. I found it very different but still, it does manages to scare and the film oozes with romantic, Gothic overtones. In the end, Interview With The Vampire is a new breed of vampire tale, a horror film with character and drama.
Super Reviewer
August 1, 2009
Epic storyline with some amazing set pieces. Full review later.
Super Reviewer
½ November 21, 2009
Extremely well done. I thought it was going to be a pathetic attempt at the genre, but it was quite amazing. Tom Cruise was priceless as Lestat, it was a great from his usual roles. Brad Pitt did a great job too, he really fit his character nicely. Even Kirsten Dunst gave a great early performance. It is a very interesting story, full of tragedy, set against a beautiful gothic landscape. It is by far one of the best vampire movies to date and is both thought provoking and entertaining.
Super Reviewer
½ March 4, 2006
Still a good movie about homoerotic vampires living in Louisiana without accents.
Super Reviewer
½ July 31, 2007
I finally watched this beautiful vampire feature as an adult for the first time. I remember watching this when it first came out, but I was too young to really appreciate the acting and the beautiful time it took place in. Brad Pitt was wonderful as always and I was surprised by Kirsten Dunst's performance as well. Very well done. This is one of those films where I won't have a problem watching over and over again.
Page 1 of 1045