Another so/so movie. Tom Cruise is WAY out of his league as the vampire Lestat, Brad Pitt works but only barely — see it instead for Kirsten Dunst in her most amazing role ever as Claudia, the child vampire. The story begins in the 1790s, then moves to the 1870s or 1880s and then the present day. Claudia’s gowns in the 19th century period are amazing, as are her “friend” Madeleine’s (I would happily kill for Madeleine’s green dress).
2 thoughts on “Interview with the Vampire (1994) short review”
Comments are closed.
I totally disagree. I loved the books and thought this movie truly stellar in cast, acting and costuming. The costumes were absolutely magnificent. All obviously great fabric, incredible fit and lovely design. I think this is an overlooked frock film because it is a vampire movie.
I disagree too. First of all the script was written by Anne Rice so it’s really faithful although the homoeroticism is toned down. Anne Rice hated the casting of Tom Cruise as Lestat and she wasn’t shy about letting people, including Tom Cruise know it. He took it as a challenge and read the whole series and she had to eat her words and admitted she was wrong. I think he was the perfect Lestat for how Lestat was written in Interview. I’m not sure how he would have been as Lestat in The Vampire Lestat. As for Armand who is the exact opposite of book Armand kinda makes sense. You couldn’t put a 17 year old angelic looking red head up against Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise, expect the viewer to believe that Armand is an older, wiser, more powerful, and more douchey vampire that Lestat and Louis. Thats especially true when suspension of disbelief has already occurred for a crazy 6 year old. It works well in the books but I don’t think it would have on screen.