Interview with the Vampire - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Interview with the Vampire Reviews

Page 2 of 1046
½ November 20, 2016
This is a metaphor for the American Civil War. Louis is the noble Northerner - resisting the urge to sustain himself on the blood of his fellow man. Lestat is the slave-holding Southerner - unashamed in his exploitation of men.
October 30, 2016
This film is a 7.5/10. Although Brad Pitt is well cast in his role, I am not certain that Tom Cruise is. A more sinister and better actor would have been more appropriately cast.

This is a case where the story itself carries the film. In other words, this film adaptation of a novel is weaker than its source material. The acting could have been improved, but the film is unique and intriguing enough in itself, to make this a good movie.

The sets and makeup are appropriate. There is just the right amount of gore to prevent this from being a modern "horror" film, and rather in the category of "suspense".
October 17, 2016
While some have misgivings with casting or tacky script and dialogue, the fascinating narrative and gothic tones definitely have their appeal. While some of the emotional appeal and character vulnerability is lost from book to screen, this film definitely finds its niche and works well as a period piece and a drama - not the horror flick that some expect.
Super Reviewer
½ October 16, 2016
I'm always down for a horror film that switches up the conventional tropes of the genre. Interview with the Vampire certainly does that, but it also fails to capture one's undivided attention for a full 2 hours.

Coming out in 1994, this was the very beginnings of Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt's rise to fame, and that plays into a lot of the fun with the film. Cruise plays a seasoned vampire, Lestat, who seeks out a partner in crime, Brad Pitt, to be the next vampire along his side. Pitt had dealt with plenty of loss in his life and so a step away from his normal life and into the immortal life isn't the worst thing. But Lestat's harsher ways of living prove to be too much for Pitt's 'Louis' character. And there you have much of the first half of the film.

It's pretty weird watching these established actors back when they were obviously taking on more risky roles such as these. I can't see either of the two taking on a vampire film now, so I guess that adds to the uniqueness of this film. There's plenty of bloody fun to be had with the film. There aren't a ton of scares, which is disappointing, but there's no shortage of obscure Cruise monologues and slasher twists.

With that said, the film takes an unexpected turn about half way through, and the rest of the story falls of the rails because of it. So much so that the first and second hour feel like completely different stories. Mixed in you get a touching arc about Louis taking in a young Kirsten Dunst, who is surprisingly great (at only 12 years of age), but it's not enough to overcome a really weak second half.

To me, the film is at its best when it explores the dynamic between Louis and Lestat, and lets Cruise and Pitt go crazy with dialogue and peculiar actions. Once we dive deep into why there are vampires and Antonio Banderas' character, the film falls flat.

+Cruise & Pitt playing strange/creepy vampires

+Bloody fun first half

-Flat second half

½ October 15, 2016
You have to be a little crusty to really love this movie, but its good.
½ October 3, 2016
when i 1st heard of this movie i thought it would be a total waist of time. but it was actually very good.
October 3, 2016
If you can shed the soap opera vibe it tries overly hard to shove down your throat, the first half of Interview With The Vampire is pretty interesting. I've never seen Dunst as all that, but she really shines here. The second half of the film, however, is quite a boring side-step that only slows its pace and adds exceptionally dull new characters.
½ September 12, 2016
The only "hitch" in the whole story as far as I am concerned was to set the Paris episode in September, 1870. By that time the Franco-Prussian war had begun in earnest, and the Germans were sending soldiers into France by the train load. From stories that have come down from family members who lived through those times, it would not be something unthought of for French people to be dancing the night away at a ritzy hotel anyway, with a German invasion force practically at their doorsteps. The Germans only fired one lone gun at Paris, on only one occasion, and seemed to have been careful not to hit anything.
½ August 26, 2016
Well pity, I read the book first, the film lacks the intimate emotional feel. and those eyes are just too much!
August 15, 2016
Review coming soon..
½ July 27, 2016
Sticks to the source material very well, and the cast is spot on! Too bad they didn't include the original scene from the book where Claudia convinces Louie to change Madeleine into a vampire, and the poor girl freaks out because she couldn't stand listening to the sound of her own voice. That is one of the most powerful moments of the book! Despite that, this is destined to be a horror/drama classic. One of Brad Pitts best films!
Super Reviewer
½ July 16, 2016
A gloomy, romantic vampire story with 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.
½ July 7, 2016
It's lovely and uneven but more lovely than words.
June 29, 2016
Best vampire movies ever.
½ May 20, 2016
It has many plot holes, questionable acting, and you sort of forget this is a INTERVIEW!!! Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed it with stunning visuals, some other good acting, and the music.
April 26, 2016
Great rendition of the books
February 28, 2016
It's one of those films that I didn't expect to like... Pitt was phenomenal as Louis... but it was Cruise that surprised me... I loved his Lestat & was remarkably surprised that he would be second fiddle... to anyone.
½ February 16, 2016
Interview With the Vampire (1994)

It's San Francisco in the 1970's and Louis (Brad Pitt) tells a young reporter, Malloy (Christian Slater) about his becoming a vampire in 18th century New Orleans. Louis was distraught, almost suicidal over the loss of his wife and baby, and soon comes in contact with a foppish vampire, Lestat (Tom Cruise) who changed his life.

Interview is not your traditional Christopher Lee vampire blood fest as much as it is a melodramatic costume drama, but if you're a Anne Rice fan, this is the movie for you. It features some of the most handsome young actors of the time, including a very young Antonio Banderas as Armond.
½ December 30, 2015
If you remember when vampires were classy and dignified creatures, then I'm sure this film will undoubtedly have some appeal. However, I personally feel that it's not as good as it could have been, but despite that, its pleasantly dark tone and dramatic storytelling ensure that the film consistently remains an interesting and atmospheric film. Unlike various other films in its genre, this film focuses on a vampire's point of view, and it doesn't exactly show the life of its vampire characters with rose-tinted glasses. The vampire life in this film is shown to be one of ceaseless suffering, with the main character seeking only the release of death (and he openly states this at the start of the film). Somehow, I can't help but think that this would be a more realistic take on what it might actually be like to be immortal. Since the film's vampires technically live forever, the writers had the opportunity to subvert the fantasy of eternal youth. Unfortunately, there are a few issues regarding the story, mainly the fact that too little happens over the film's ample runtime (what I would generally call a pacing issue), and there are quite a few unanswered questions raised by the film's plot. The main characters instantly remind me of some of the characters from the Castlevania games, but only on an aesthetic level. I big problem I notice is that it's difficult to sympathize with them, and in this regard, the first problem with the characters is that the actors are clearly trying too hard to live up to a melodramatic script. I understand the film's gothic horror approach, being quite familiar with the genre myself, but there is a point where dramatic acting with an austere tone of voice can become quite campy, and it doesn't take that much. The other problem is that one of the film's central characters (Tom Cruise's character to be specific) is a contemptible jerk who ruins the lives of everyone who goes near him. The film's message seems to be that nobody wants to be a vampire, and yet Lestat makes it his business to suck the blood of anything that moves, and when one of the characters calls him out for his behaviour, he calls her insane. Now that I think of it, Lestat's acting is probably the cheesiest of any character in the film. The other characters aren't really that likable either, but they're at least more tolerable, and at least they were blessed with better actors, though it still seems quite weird that the producers decided that the two French vampires should have American accents. On the plus side, the film is at least capable of taking advantage of the atmospheric quality of the film's setting, and some very nice costume and set design as well. The film sports a quite theatrical gothic style which, though not exactly unique, certainly sets the tone of the movie quite while. This is perhaps the biggest strength of a film that would otherwise sink before it could swim. Don't get me wrong, I do think it's a good movie, but the sad thing is that it could have been far better.
Page 2 of 1046