Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
12 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
A Triumph, 1 Jun 2006
Interview With The Vampire is a film adaptation of Anne Rice's best seller. The film tells the life story, in first person, of Louis ( Brad Pitt ), a man with nothing to life for, who is seduced into darkness and the life of a vampire by Lestat ( Tom Cruise ). Louis is tormented by his now undead life, and the fact that he must now kill others in order to survive himself. The film is based mainly in the nineteenth century and every detail of that aspect such as the history, costumes, and scenery are displayed in perfect detail. Interview With The Vampire is a very involving film that draws you in too the point that you fall in love with the characters, and feel each of their triumphs and failures. The relationships between the characters are almost unequalled in complexity and realism, especially the hate between Louis and Lestat, and the love between Louis and his vampire daughter who is played by Kirsten Dunst. Also the loneliness portrayed by Tom Cruise is stunning. The film has some strong bloody violence that is normally associated with vampire, and horror films, but this simply makes the film more powerful as it is not over the top or inappropriate. This is really one to watch and enjoy.
|
|
|
8 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
"I want some more!", 17 Feb 2004
Ten years after this movie was made, it is still an awe inspiring film that stays with you hours after watching it. I have watched this movie several times now, and it still moves me to think of how it would be to be immortal. It follows Louis, (Pitt), who, after losing all that matters to him, meets a vampire called Lestat, (Cruise). We are allowed to follow their story along with a journalist, (Slater), and in doing so are shown the romance of being forever young and healthy, with the terrible sadness and loneliness of having no-one to share it all with. This movie has everything, from humour and horror to haunting music score and terrific cast. Tom Cruise is not one of my favourite actors, but he is good 9 times out of 10. This film is one of his better roles. He is everything you would expect a vampire to be. Brad Pitt, also not one of my faves, is truly outstanding as Louis. You feel for him at every turn, and I would like to think that people like him still exist today. Who would have thought that a vampire could feel guilty about taking human life?! Kirsten Dunst is wonderful as the woman trapped inside a little girl's body, who just wants to grow up but knows she never will. Antonio Banderas deserves a mention too as does Stephen Rea. I am surprised that this movie has an 18 certificate. I think it would be quite comfortable as a 15. The blood and gore aren't too bad considering the nature of the plot. Maybe it has something to do with being 10 years old, the older films tend to have a higher certificate than movies today. All in all, this movie is definately one that should be a part of any true movie fan's library. If you are squeamish, don't be put off because it really isn't a horror film. It's more of a sad, dark fairy tale that makes you question immortality. I recommend this film to any movie watcher and I think most people will get something good from it.
|
|
|
15 of 16 people found the following review helpful:
Dies Irae, Dies Doloris ..., 6 May 2004
"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 anyway).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 | |