An absolute waste of money

I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

"Interview with the Vampire" is a classic for those who enjoy vampire movies. In this new era of film-making, we have a vampire movie from the early nineties that is so much more than blood and gore, empty fights and the new glam with which they seem to be portraying vampires in films. We have actual living beings (even though they're dead, but you get the point) asking questions about their existence, about God and the Devil, about death. The movie tells us the story of Louis, who is lost in the abyss of depression and, as his final scream asking for help, accepts the bite of a vampire, who promises him to be young and immortal. It's the story of how Louis gets to deal with his new immortal, nocturnal life. But it is also so much more than that. It's how they show Lestat's persuasive side, making a little girl a vampire just so Louis could stay with him; It's how the directors portrayed the era the movie was set in, the costumes, the acting. Everything is put together to create an aesthetically-pleasing movie.However, I first watched "Interview with the Vampire" when I was barely a teenager. At that time, I loved every aspect of it. This movie is very dear to my heart because it introduced me to Anne Rice's books and, after that, I started reading almost all of her Vampire Chronicle's novels. The problem is that I watched it again some time ago, after years of not watching it, and the holes in the plotline and the choice in cast made me cringe so bad that I had to pause the film to think if I should keep watching it.First of all, I have to point out that I'm extremely heartbroken that the directors took away one big part of the plotline: the homoerotic aspect of the series. And by this, I'm not saying that the characters are homosexual, because I know that Anne Rice's vampires are pretty much asexual and without any real carnal desire aside from the desire to actually bite and take blood from their kills. However, throughout all of Anne Rice's books she states clearly that the relationship between Lestat and Louis is one of lovers. Yes, they fight a lot, they don't agree in many topics, but they love each other like nobody else and I feel like this is lost in the movie. This was done to have more acceptability in the media from more closed-minded viewers. Maybe that was the price they had to pay for the movie to be made. Still, I believe that this takes away most of the movie's essence.Another point worth of mentioning is the choice of actors to play the roles of the characters. On the bright side, I cannot leave this review without mentioning how astonishing Tom Cruise's performance is while playing Lestat. Even if they had to put him on boxes, so he could look taller in some scenes, I couldn't ask for a better actor to play this role. He is exactly how I imagine Lestat to be. He plays Lestat's egocentric, mischievous, elegant essence too well for his own good and leaves us wanting more of his appearance in the movie every time he isn't on the screen. That being said, though, I still need to mention something that really bothers me. Armand. If you haven't read the books, you probably don't know what I'm talking about. In the books, Armand is a Russian boy, raised in Italy, who has a fair complexion, red locks and a cherub-like face. He was turned into a vampire when he was about 17 years-old. Now, knowing that, the producers decided it was a good idea to cast Antonio Banderas into Armand's role. It took away absolutely ALL the magic when Louis met Armand, because, while watching the movie, you don't see the cherub-like boy we have in the books, we see and old-looking vampire, with long, straight black hair, saying he is the oldest vampire he knows that is alive. It was hard to accept that. Again, they probably did this to make things easier when selling the movie, because, let's be real, when you think about a super old vampire, full of skills and powers, you certainly don't think about a teen-age-looking redheaded boy.Overall, aside from my fan-minded -rant, "Interview with the Vampire" is a very underrated but magic movie that can open doors to some amazing novels by an amazing author. If you are looking for a movie full of very talented people, with glorious costumes and quotes to live by, I totally suggest you to give "Interview with the Vampire" a try.

For me - When it comes to the likes of vampire movies - I'd say that they can all easily be slotted into one of these 3 following categories - Good - Mediocre - Awful.And - With that said - I will give you just one guess as to which category I place "Interview".Without question - This dreadfully disappointing horror film's 2 biggest and 2 most damaging deficits were, of course, the total miscasting of Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt into the story's all-important lead roles.It was especially the casting of Cruise (Mr. Zero-Charisma, himself) as the "Lestat" character that promptly brought "Interview's" potentially promising story down to an absolute dead halt.It seems that every time I see Cruise in any picture - I'm always left completely perplexed as to why the hell his vast popularity (and roles in big-budget productions) continues to prevail. 'Cause if there ever was a totally vacant, empty-headed, amateurish actor to successfully endure in Hollywood Heaven - Cruise would definitely be the one.

Continuing my plan to watch every Tom Cruise movie in order, I come to Interview With The Vampire (1994)Plot In A Paragraph: Louis (Brad Pitt) a vampire tells his epic life story: love, betrayal, loneliness, and hunger.At the time of release, this was not like any other vampire movie I had seen. In movies like Lost Boys and various others, being a vampire is portrayed as almost fun. This movie goes into what a curse immortality is, in a similar way Highlander did, admits all the decapitations. Cruise does not play the main role in this one, but he does something all great actors can do. Play the best part in the movie and steal every scene. The best role in a movie, does not need to be the lead role. It just needs to be the most memorable, and Cruise dominates proceedings and truthfully the movie is duller when he is not on screen. Which sadly is almost all the last half of the movie. Brad Pitt is not an actor I really care for. There are exceptions, but generally he bores me. This is one such example. I must point out Kirsten Dunst,who was rightly nominated for an Oscar. Her performance is superb. If it was not for Cruise she would have stole the movie. Antonio Banderas is OK, whilst Cristian Slater doesn't really have much to do. I never realised Cruises future MI2 co star Thandie Newton was in this. I enjoy the use of Guns N Roses cover of Sympathy For The Devil over the end credits too. I actually let the credits run. I wonder why there was never a sequel, it's certainly open for one, and the potential is there. Maybe it wasn't a big enough hit. Finishing outside the Top 10 highest grossers of the year. As Interview With The Vampire grossed $105 million at the domestic box office, to end the year the 11th highest grossing movie of 1994.

In endless sea of vampire vomit, this movie stands as one of the best movies in vampire "genre", and after every vampire crap I have misfortune to see I gladly go back to this one to wash off crap from my brain.I don't like Kirsten and I hate Tom Cruise, but here both of them fit perfectly. Brad is good by default, I love Christian, and the only issue is Banderas. I simply can not see him as vampire, but his role is too small to have influence on overall impression...........................................