An astonishingly bad film treatment

Rating: Null/10 (2 October 2004)

I read Anne Rice's "Interview With the Vampire" well before I saw this film, so my expectations were that Hollywood would ruin the treatment of her first vampire novel. Surprisingly, the film did not even reach the low expectations I had for it. Indeed, this movie is a textbook case of Hollywood bastardizing a good book. As usual, it was ruined a combination of by being obliged to use "big name stars", trying to squeeze an epic story into a 2-hour time-frame, and adapting the story for the audience of the lowest common denominator. When it was announced that Tom Cruise would play Lestat and Brad Pitt would portray Louis, Anne Rice publicly stated that she considered the film to be an inevitable disaster. Inexplicably (and I suspect it had to do with money and publisher's contracts), she later embraced the film, and declared it "perfect". Pardon me if I'm skeptical of her change of heart.
There are principally three problems with this film. First, any adaptation of a book like that by Rice--with the inner lives of the characters being of paramount importance--is very difficult to translate into film without heavily relying upon voice-overs. But although the film utilizes much expository narration, that effect falls flat with Brad Pitt's monotonous delivery. Instead of sounding ancient and world-weary, he merely sounds bored and uninspired.
Second (and perhaps this is nit-picking) the fake teeth--especially those fitted to Cruise--are just abominable. They make every line he speaks sound, well, like a guy talking through fake fangs. They also distort his lips so that every expression is a grimace. In fact, Cruise's false teeth are no more realistic than those worn by the vastly more charismatic Christopher Lee in the classic Hammer Dracula flicks of the '60s.
Third (and most serious), the film's two leads (Pitt and Cruise) are simply inept as serious actors. They're really not "actors" at all, they're two-dimensional character actors, being asked here to play against type. Well, Daniel Auteuil is an actor. Michael Gambon is an actor. Gary Oldman is an actor. Tom Cruise? Brad Pitt? Neither of them have the skill, the subtlety, the expressive ability to actually "act" in roles such as these. Cruise's usual acting range has two modes: "determined", and "rogueishly charming" (as in every other movie he's done). Here, he fluctuates between pomposity and tantrums; mundanity and over-the-top scenery-chewing, as if a switch in his back were being flicked one way, and then the other. Every line he delivers sounds unbelievably pretentious. Pitt is little better, although he does avoid Cruise's intolerable stridency. Antonio Banderas' characterization of "Armand" is uncannily similar to Ricardo Montalban in one of his smarmier roles. Far better choices would have perhaps been someone like Ralph Feinnes for Lestat and Jonathan Rhys-Meyers or Jude Law for Louis. Feinnes could've humanized Lestat, and either Rhys-Meyers or Law could've brought some life to Louis. Yes, Kirsten Dunst does a decent job with her role, but most of the other actors belong doing daytime dramas.
Indeed, that is essentially what director Neil Jordan has done: he's remade the old vampire soap opera "Dark Shadows" for the Fabio fans of the '90s. As can be seen from the majority of reviews here, "Interview With the Vampire" was a big hit with teenage girls raised on TV. For those with higher expectations of vampire films, this one will just embarrass. Instead, watch "Bram Stoker's Dracula", "Nosferatu" (either one), "Near Dark" (if you have the stomach for it) or even "Nadja", if you want a truly unusual vampire film. For those who have read Anne Rice's book and have an expectation of quality from a film adaptation of it, I can only caution you go avoid this slab of Hollywood tripe at any cost.
And--it's not exactly a spoiler, but the ending of the film is totally different than the ending of the novel, and it sells out the novel's much better-crafted closure.