Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Interview with the Vampire (199.

This is the most interesting vampire movie ever made (even if the overall execution has issues). Ironically, that B-movie sequel "A Return to Salem's Lot (1987)" by Larry Cohen comes in second for most thematically interesting vampire movie.

Tom Cruise is good, but miscast. This is a peculiar situation (good but miscast) that sometimes happens. John Malkovich in "Dangerous Liaisons (1988)" is another example.

Brad Pitt was also miscast and not super impressive, but doesn't ruin the movie.

Kirsten Dunst was great for her age.

Probably should have won the Oscar for best art direction.

by Anonymousreply 29January 6, 2025 6:56 PM

I always thought this film was interesting and underrated.

by Anonymousreply 1January 2, 2025 3:18 PM

Kirsten Dunst was the best actor (though her role and lines were often poor.) Cruise gave the impression of simultaneously overacting and nervously holding back. Pitt alternated between a barely adequate performance and longing to be somewhere, anywhere else. The direction was bad. I would say it is among the more mediocre vampire films.

It's a great waste of opportunity. The casting of Pitt and Cruise felt like the work of outside hands, and Neil Jordan might have made a classic if the material - but didn't.

Like all horror films, it's the start that's the best, the plantation scenes were the best, visually and In setting a mood.

by Anonymousreply 2January 2, 2025 4:19 PM

Totally agree about Cruise & Dunst was very good - alternately charming & practically feral, but (and I'll admit, it's been years since I read the book) I thought Pitt as Louis was gorgeous, charming, sad and not terribly savvy. He embodied the kind of seductiveness that Rice seemed to be going for in the books. It wasn't a great movie, but as lush, silly costume drama, it was pretty entertaining. But Cruise was totally wrong as the head vampire

by Anonymousreply 3January 2, 2025 4:28 PM

Dunst acts circles around the two leads. Cruise wasn’t just miscast but laughably bad. See the AMCseries for how Lestat should be played. Pitt seems to have one character note that Louis is sad and that’s all he portrays. Also, you are dead wrong about Malcovich in DL.

by Anonymousreply 4January 2, 2025 4:38 PM

I loved this movie as a kid and as a teen, but I watched this movie as an adult a year ago and it did not hold up.

by Anonymousreply 5January 2, 2025 4:44 PM

He was miscast and not that good, but Pitt was beautiful in this film.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 6January 2, 2025 4:44 PM

In my casting dreams, it would have been Daniel Day Lewis and Julian Sands, but that would have been an entirely different movie. The AMC version is really outstanding.

by Anonymousreply 7January 2, 2025 4:50 PM

In the late 90s, I watched this movie on an endless loop when someone had it on VHS in the college dorms my freshman year. I loved it then and love it now.

Yes, Cruise and Pitt were totally miscast, but somehow that made it better for me. And it started my weird fascination with Dunst that remains to to this day.

by Anonymousreply 8January 2, 2025 5:05 PM

I'm too lazy to find the link but I heard that Cher was considered for Tom Cruise's role. Apparently the studio executives were worried about the relationship seeming too gay. I prefer the AMC show.

by Anonymousreply 9January 2, 2025 5:10 PM

Chee.

by Anonymousreply 10January 2, 2025 5:13 PM

God, I’ll never live down that Cher typo I made will I?

by Anonymousreply 11January 2, 2025 5:30 PM

I was told in middle school that the word “interesting” should never be used to describe something. Describe WHY it is interesting

by Anonymousreply 12January 2, 2025 10:00 PM

Who is Chee?

by Anonymousreply 13January 2, 2025 11:47 PM

I loved Tom Cruise as Lestat. Kirsten Dunst was fantastic too. As much as I love Brad, he wasn't very compelling, but he was gorgeous. I saw this movie 3 times and my poor husband sat through it all with me. Lol, but we had fun when we got home.

by Anonymousreply 14January 3, 2025 12:10 AM

Siskel and Ebert liked it.

Not great, but like I said, it is the most interesting take on vampire lore I've ever seen. "A Return to Salem's Lot (1987)" has the second interesting take on vampire lore - even if it's hated by Stephen King purists.

by Anonymousreply 15January 4, 2025 6:02 PM

I read the book in 1977. I bought it in an airport bookstore on my very first plane ride -- to basic training. So I never wanted to see the movie, much less watch a TV series.

And while I've said this here before, it bears repeating: if you're a fan of Ann Rice, read Feast of All Saints. Her writing went all downhill from there.

by Anonymousreply 16January 4, 2025 6:16 PM

I’ve never been a Tom Cruise fan but I like him in this and Magnolia.

by Anonymousreply 17January 4, 2025 9:45 PM

Sorry -- I meant Anne.

by Anonymousreply 18January 4, 2025 9:46 PM

I didn't realize it was made in 199 but released centuries later

by Anonymousreply 19January 4, 2025 9:49 PM

[quote]Interview with the Vampire (199.

Was this a prequel and was it set in the Pontine Marshes?

How did one fend off a vampire without a crucifix and holy water?

by Anonymousreply 20January 4, 2025 9:55 PM

A relic from the last century. I saw it once. Have no interest in seeing it again.

"This house, is like, so, like cursed, dude".

by Anonymousreply 21January 4, 2025 9:55 PM

I always felt like Pitt would’ve been a better Lestat and Cruise would’ve been a better Louis. Dunst stole the film from both of them.

by Anonymousreply 22January 4, 2025 9:59 PM

Visually stunning. That's it

by Anonymousreply 23January 4, 2025 11:56 PM

It’s not great but it’s a fun watch. Better than Queen of the Damned which gets hyped up because of Aaliyah’s tragic death.

by Anonymousreply 24January 5, 2025 12:07 AM

I wanted so much for Brad Pitt to kiss Antonio Banderas.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 25January 5, 2025 12:39 AM

Good film adaptation that I enjoyed more than I thought I would. It drew me in the more I watched it. Always loved the way the ending was filmed.

by Anonymousreply 26January 5, 2025 4:28 AM

Antonio Banderas and the theatre of the vampires were stunning.

by Anonymousreply 27January 5, 2025 4:35 AM

It has one of those classic Hollywood blockbuster endings.

by Anonymousreply 28January 6, 2025 5:56 PM

After seeing Sam Reid in the AMC series, I find it impossible to watch Tom Cruise as Lestat.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 29January 6, 2025 6:56 PM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!