Vampires never looked so good... (POTENTIAL FOR SPOILAGE.)

Rating: 9/10 (17 January 2002)

... in an aesthetic sense, I mean. For whilst the production design, costumes and photography are all lavish, this is a world away from the iconic, rock star status bestowed on vamps in such previous movies as '80's teen classic "The Lost Boys" for instance. (Quite ironic, really, given that I've just read that Lestat becomes a rock star in the follow up: "Queen of the Damned") The life of these vampires is shown to be all surface glitz, hiding the inexorable loneliness they feel at being the only ones around on the earth to witness life go through all its changes. The beauty of this movie is that you can take it anyway you want though; you can see it as a character study, straightforward thriller or period piece. It is ALL of these things, in fact, bound up in one glorious whole.
Allaying the fears of many an Anne Rice fanboy/girl (and even the author herself) when his casting was announced, Tom Cruise does fine in the pivotal role of Lestat de Lioncourt, an embittered, aristocratic and charismatic vampire who serves as a ghoulish guide to Louis (Brad Pitt) into the world of the undead. The common misconception is that Cruise can't act, you see, but he CAN. Unfortunately, he's just cursed with that 'idiot grin' so accurately skewered by the villain in MI:2. Still, gleaming gnashers aside, he's given many a good performance, and this is actually one of his best.
The rising star that was then Brad Pitt also does fine, although some wags (like me) will no doubt simply label his character 'a miserablist g*t'. It is Kirsten Dunst who waltzes away with the acting honours here though, delivering a frighteningly mature performance at such a young age. She really does look young here, and not like the lovely lady who sets this reviewer's heart a-flutter these days. I noticed a trend amongst users before me to categorise her character Claudia as 'evil'. I don't really understand this. She just seemed to me to be quite understandably PO'd that Lestat and Louis had stolen her childhood. (or rather, prolonged it interminably.) Besides, her companions are hardly paragons of virtue themselves, are they? Even Louis caves in the end... E-mail me if you feel you can shed any light on this issue.
Perennial Jordan favourite Rea also shows up. Then there's Antonio Banderas, whose character Armand doesn't really work at all. Also look out for Thandie Newton (yes, Mr Cruise's love object in the aforementioned MI:2) and Christian Slater, in a role undeserving of such a big name, which was probably only allocated to him in order to further 'up' the male totty factor.
There are several lavish setpieces on display, which work splendidly thanks to the invariably good acting and magnificent sets, and it's interesting to see a characters life explored that we don't usually get much insight into, beyond the usual garlic-phobic clichÃ©s. For unadulterated horror fans, though, it's not really THAT scary; more a methodical exploration than an all out gorefest. It's all treated with the usual elegance by Jordan, who seems the perfect director to enliven Anne Rice's material because of his artistic sensibilities. So much so, in fact, that I had to abandon the exercise of reading the novel after seeing the film, because the movie had become the definitive version in my head, overshadowing everything that came from the true author's pen.
It is a shame, therefore, that I have been denied an aspect of my literary education by the film, but my movie-loving faculties have been stimulated instead. A wonderful film, see it if you haven't already.