Dracula and Nosferatu can rest in piece if this is the only competition they are up against.

Rating: 5/10 (16 March 2001)

***POSSIBLE PLOT SPOILERS***
Lavish adaptation of Anne Rice's novel, scripted by the author herself. Film begins with a modern-day prologue as a reporter played by Christian Slater interviews Brad Pitt who claims to be an ageless vampire. Narrative then moves back to the end of the 18th Century in New Orleans. Here Pitt is infected by the vampire Lestat, played by Tom Cruise, and the film follows the progress of their relationship and later Pitt's journey to Europe where he encounters another vampire, played by Banderas.
This is a film of set pieces, with lavish scenes and masses of extras playing out against a hollow narrative and a particularly poor ( and miscast ) performance from Cruise. Rice was supposedly mortified at the casting of Cruise as Lestat, but after seeing his initial scenes retracted this and endorsed him fully. I don't know what she saw because he is totally unsuitable in the part despite making a gallant effort. Considering the importance of his character, this deals the film a mortal blow from which it never looks like recovering.
As in other Neil Jordan films, this is all gloss and no substance with the basics of storytelling and film-making given a backseat. Like 'Mary Shelley's Frankenstein' (1994), 'Interview with the Vampire' shows how the modern age still hasn't figured out a satisfactory approach to the horror film. Be it an historical vampire story as we have here, or a modern update as in 'Near Dark' (1987), recent attempts at serious horror concerning vampires have been dull, contrived and not very scary. It seems that only a comic-book approach can provide decent, albeit shallow, entertainment for fans of the undead - 'Blade' (1998) and 'From Dusk Till Dawn' (1996) are limited but, by default, are the most commendable recent offerings.
Overall the film is a big disappointment. Only Brad Pitt manages to extricate himself from the mediocrity and puts in a good performance despite the material. People who rave over this mustn't have seen the multitude of top-notch vampire films over the years, the majority of which provide pints of thick, deep, red blood, as opposed to the dribble of anaemic, watered down rubbish we have here. Star names, a big budget and glossy production values don't automatically make a quality film and in this case can't even provide an average one.