different than i had expected-wanted more machismo

Rating: 6/10 (29 April 2012)

I was around 4 or 5 when this movie came out. I just saw it for the first time now. I'm a vampire movie junkie, and I admit a fan of Twilight, being a girl and a teen when that first came out, what choice did I have (lol). Thirsty for more I have been venturing out and watching older movies and came across 1994 Interview with the Vampire on Netflix. Not what I expected. I'm now confused about my entire "Vampire World", and not because of Twilight or Interview with the Vampire, but more because of 1992 Dracula, which I also recently saw (it came out when I was about 2 or 3),but I'll get to Dracula in a moment. As I mentioned I'm a Vampire junkie, and I came across and read Anne Rice's novel which got me to watch the Interview with the Vampire movie. Differences, some, Brad Pitt's character (Louis) was upset at the beginning of the movie about losing his brother, he didn't have a wife and kid in the book, but that's okay, point is, he was depressed. Also, when a Vampire's cries in the book, they cry tears of blood, but in the movie it was regular tears. I think they should have did the blood tears. Minor, but still felt an important detail. Here comes my biggest problem, I found it very "Gay" at times and almost uncomfortable. Brad Pitt was beautiful in the movie, and I'm not homo-phobic, trust me on that, but at times it was a little too effeminate for me. I know Vampires are A-sexual, and it's about the love and there is no sex more or less, but I felt in this movie it WAS about the sex the way the actor's played it, and their lust or their motivation for desire was homo-erotic and more sex driven and portrayed or should I say exploited than it should have been played. Their love or lust was Gay, and again, I'm not hating on "Gays", I like both men and women equally in that department, I just feel that the way it played out in the movie was more about sex than what it should have been. They were portraying Vampires, not humans. Not easy to explain in so many words, but it just did not come across as what two vampires should share, it came across as two mortals that were Gay. Before any one throws the first 'rainbow' stone at me, read what I've written, homosexuality doesn't bother me, or to be to the point, I'm Gay. I just feel they played it on a homo-erotic level suited for humans and not the love of two Vampires. Let me carry on from here, earlier I mentioned that I was confused after watching the 1992 version of Dracula. Here is why, I've been watching the Twilight movies, and several others (including "Interview") and then I watched Dracula. Dracula is on a completely different level. Gary Oldman and Anthony Hopkins are masters. I feel like a fool for being a fan of other Vampire movies. It's like I've been given "Movie Goggles" and now I can see the difference. I guess Interview with a Vampire was somewhat the Twilight of it's day, it looks great, it's cool, it's sexy, but Dracula feels real and not so, well, stupid. Interview with the Vampire was definitely worth the watch. Biggest drawback for me is that when I want a man, I want a man, and in fantasy land when I want to be taken by a Vampire, I want a Vampire. I like my women effeminate, not my men. Most of my friends are Gay, but when I want a man, I want a MAN. Felt like if I got into a threesome with these "Vampires" I'd have to strap on my strap on and take charge, and then smoke a cigarette after as they make me dinner and do my laundry. Maybe I'm just an ol' fashion kind of bi-sexual chick.