Rich, dark adaption of the novel (major spoilers ahead)

Rating: Null/10 (1 May 2004)

"Interview With The Vampire" is a noteworthy motion picture in today's times. Much debate has been written about the translation of great literature to the screen and while the source novel itself is not really that old (it was written in 1976), it has gone on to be considered a classic in vampire lore. It is then interesting to watch how Rice's text adapts itself (it was she who penned the screenplay) to the film medium. The only major problem, as rich as this film is, it has slight inconsistencies that will baffle any viewer that has not read "Interview" or its follow-ups.
The film begins flying into downtown San Francisco through to the window of a quiet room, cut off from the busy world outside. A vampire, Louis (Brad Pitt), recounts the story of his life to an intrigued journalist (Christian Slater). A plantation owner living near New Orleans, Louis had recently lost his life and his daughter and had sunk into a self-destructive depression. He meets Lestat (Tom Cruise), a vampire. He's attracted by Louis' pained grieving and persuades Louis to let him turn him into a vampire. Louis, however, regrets the decision and refuses to share Lestat's love for hunting and killing humans. To remedy this, Lestat gives him a companion, an orphaned child Claudia (a very young Kirsten Dunst), to keep him company. However, Claudia comes to resent Lestat for turning her, sparking off a tide of events that take Louis from New Orleans, to Paris and back...
The story has many strong themes, and it does not take the traditional view of vampires as purely monsters (as depicted in "Dracula" and countless rip-off Hollywood films) but sees them as individual personalities. The very fact they will never die, and thus never change, is what truly cuts them off from humanity. Therein they must live off the blood of those who do change, in order to survive. This is the very fate that most deeply affects Claudia, condemned to spend her eternal life in the body of a child. Louis resists his vampiric urges and ponders, in his own self-pitying way, the meaning of eternal life. Lestat, on the other hand, has no time for that and enjoys indulging his bloodthirsty cravings. If you're going to live forever, you may as well enjoy it.
This bleeds into other themes too. When Louis and Claudia discover the Parisian Theatre of the Vampires, and Armand (Antonio Banderas), Louis discovers that there vampires are mutually inable to discern their history. In trying to do so, however, they end up decadent and marooned in the past. To count this, Armand advises disregarding the past altogether and embracing the changes of the future. He says to secure Louis' affections, and Louis very nearly takes him on.
There are inconsistencies. You would need to have read "The Vampire Lestat" to understand how Lestat has powers slightly different from other vampires, thus enabling him to survive Claudia and Louis' attempts to kill him, not to mention his ability to fly at will. This is not explained sufficiently in the movie. Yet these are minor nitpickings, for the main semblance of the story is intact and the film is all the better for it.
Brad Pitt makes for a thoughtful, contemplative yet at the same time passionate Louis. It is very easy to sympathise with him. Tom Cruise (initially derided by author Anne Rice) attacks the part of Lestat with a dark, charismatic relish. Kirsten Dunst is a strong, tragic presence as the doomed Claudia. Antonio Banderas is fine as Armand, even if he does not generate the homoerotic tension necessary to understand his attraction to Louis. Stephen Rea is quite happy to go clownishly over-the-top as the sadistic vampire actor Santiago.
The film is very well shot, with some wonderfully sweeping cinematography from Philippe Rousselot. This is accompanied by Eliot Goldenthal's eerie music score, which is seamlessly weaved in with classical music from Beethoven, Handel and even Mick Jagger. The direction is good, but anyone expecting a scare-fest will be disappointed. The film is not overtly frightening, but the more physical scenes, with the vampires and their victims, are appropriately bloody and erotic.
A rich, dark and exquisite picture. Well recommended.