Review No. 469
So. Bloody. Boring.
DIRECTED BY NEIL JORDAN. WRITTEN BY ANNE RICE, BASED ON HER NOVEL “INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE”. STARRING TOM CRUISE (LESTAT DE LIONCOURT), BRAD PITT (LOUIS DE POINTE DU LAC), ANTONIO BANDERAS (ARMAND), STEPHEN REA (SANTIAGO), CHRISTIAN SLATER (DANIEL MOLLOY), AND KIRSTEN DUNST (CLAUDIA). ALSO STARRING DOMIZIANA GIORDANO, SARA STOCKBRIDGE, AND THANDIE NEWTON. DISTRIBUTED BY WARNER BROS. ON NOVEMBER 11, 1994. PRODUCED IN ENGLISH BY THE UNITED STATES. RUNS 2 HOURS, 2 MINUTES. INTENDED FOR MATURE AUDIENCES, DUE TO SEXUAL SITUATIONS AND INTENSE VIOLENCE.
INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE: THE VAMPIRE CHRONICLES WAS WATCHED ON APRIL 28, 2013.
“Please allow me to introduce myself
I’m a man of wealth and taste
I’ve been around for a long, long year
Stole many a man’s soul and faith…”
–“Sympathy for the Devil” by the Rolling Stones
I can just imagine the casting calls for Interview with the Vampire. Any takers to play a prostitute who has her wrist drained into Tom Cruise’s wine glass? What about a random passerby who has the honor of exsanguination straight into the gullet of Brad Pitt? Et cetera. Et cetera. Et cetera.
Interview with the Vampire is a routine movie that acts as more of a TV miniseries. It seems to have one single intention: to disgust its audience. Sure, there’s a plot, but it’s thin; and as if that isn’t enough, it’s buried beneath a blood drinking here, a blood drinking there. There’s several moments when it gets so mindlessly graphic, you desperately want to turn it off. It manages to disgust quite well. It also manages to amuse, from poor writing, acting, and musical scoring. And believe it or don’t, that’s not all. You can hardly guess these people are vampires until they say so. How is it that a film’s visual department can be so polarized? I think the one thing that kept me awake here was the Victorian, Gothic look. Yet at the same time, the makeup on Brad Pitt’s face is clearly a falsity, and it’s all too obvious that Tom Cruise is wearing a wig.
The plot could have been interesting, but unfortunately, it shot itself in the face with a rifle loaded with cheese. Or corn. Either works. Anyway, we open with a man staring out the window. He looks about twenty-five, but we find out from an interviewer in the room that he’s actually a 200-year-old vampire. Well I’ll be goddamned. The funny thing is, we’re supposed to believe him as much as the interviewer is, despite the implausibility of what he’s claimed. Even after a two-hour rambling about his life as a vampire, though, we’re still convinced he’s Brad Pitt wearing multi-million-dollar makeup. (What a waste of money.)
Interview with the Vampire isn’t a bad movie. It’s amazingly bad. It’s almost as bloody awful as one could get. If it managed to blow my mind in any way, I guess I’m surprised that a film from 1994 can, in fact, be notably cheesier than 1922’s Nosferatu. Now Interview with the Vampire sells itself to us as a drama, not a horror, but I may say, that one statistic is scary.
Postscript: I saw Interview with the Vampire on TV. I, like most others, hate commercials in general, but the commercials in between scenes here were a blessing.