Good ideas, an interesting and effective point of view, and nice direction by Neil Jordan, but never really takes of with the material. We expect much more for such great filmmakers. ** (out of of four)

Rating: 5/10 (17 April 2001)

INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE / (1994) ** (out of four)
By Blake French:
"Don't be afraid. I'm going to give you the choice I never had" Lestat de Lioncourt
The dialogue, used several times throughout Neil Jordan's "Interview with the Vampire," comes from the lips of a vampire hundreds of years old. His name is Lestat de Lioncourt, played with the right attitude and mood by Tom Cruise. He explains to a suicidal Louis de Pointe du Lac (Brad Pitt), that he can either spend the rest of eternity as a bloodsucker, or meet a dreadful demise. Louis chooses to become a vampire. That is the setup for this stylish, well acted, but lackluster drama from the popular novel by Anne Rice, who also provided the film with its screenplay.
The movie is a personal narrative of Louis, but Anne Rice believes it to take a point of view from the audience's perspective. I disagree. Louis is the storyteller here, and I do not think it could be any clearer from whom the story is coming-it is the right angle for the material. The plot is told through the conducting of an interview by a simple-minded reporter (Christian Slater) interested in Louis's complex and intriguing background. "I'm flesh and blood, but not human," explains Louis, "I haven't been human for two hundred years."
He tells a story of passion, fear, love, death, desire, and need. His history begins in New Orleans during the late 1700's, where he lost his family and lives a life of grief and depression. Louis becomes a vampire after an encounter with Lestat, who wants a similar companion to spend his endless days with. "That morning I was not yet a vampire, and I saw my last sunrise. I remember it completely, and yet I can't recall any sunrise before it. I watched its whole magnificence for the last time as if it were the first. And then I said farewell to sun light, and set out to become what I became," elucidates Louis in one of the movie's most revealing and understood scenes.
There are several key characters who play tribute to the long, continuing life of Louis. There is the child vampire, played uncomfortably by a 12-year old Kirsten Dunst, whom Louis grows to love like a sister-or lover. Dunst is unmistakably miscast in her role, giving her character an annoying, insecure mood. She is simply too young to realize the intensities and requirements of her character. The movie becomes even more unconvincing when several other vampires in Paris, including Armand (Antonio Banderas) and Santiago (Stephen Rea), explain to Louis that he is part of an international secret society.

Neither Jordan nor Rice make the life of a vampire look
particularly joyous. That is the point of the movie, to demonstrate that excepting a once in an eternity gift may turn out to be a never ending hell. Throughout the story, many characters beg for the gift of vampirism, but they do not understand the consequences of their desires. "Interview with the Vampire" captures the ceaseless sadness of being a vampire; we realize their gift is unintrusive, but the other characters covet it like nothing else.
The movie's success is in its appearance by cinematographer Phillipe Rousselot and production designer Dante Ferretti. They create a moody, atmospheric world for the characters. Much can also be said about the scenes in which the vampires feast on the blood of their victims. Jordan focuses the camera on the eye of the attacking vampire. The film presents the moment of attack as suspecting, but at the same time, tantalizing because of the indulging satisfaction and the perfect timing.
Several factors of the film are peculiarly vulnerable to logic. Due to the geographical location for the area, the sun can never be directly above Paris. But during one of he film's most important scenes, that takes place at the bottom of a well, the entire floor is directly illuminated. And what about the final confrontation between Louis and Lestat-it's meaningless and brief. Are we really supposed to believe the scene would be this short lived, lacking any kind of imagination or curiosity? It is made clear several times that vampires are immortal, but when one drinks "dead blood" it appears as if he meets a graphic decease. If they can die, wouldn't the massive consuming fire have finished him off? Either way, the plot requires the vampire to appear again later in the movie, so he does.

The film's mood also gets in the way. We just get the same style repeated over and over. A lot of the dialogue is right on the money, but even more of it feels contrived and simulated. After a while-a short while-the movie becomes down right boring, to the extent where I simply stopped caring about the characters altogether. "Interview with a Vampire" also makes the often misunderstood blunder, which I never grow tired of explaining, in which the filmmakers attempt to blend surreal fantasy with reality. If a movie is intended to be fiction, stay with the fiction. Do not try to rationalize the concepts of the unreal with the real. It just does not blend well. "Interview with the Vampire" just doesn't know where to draw the line between realism and fable.
Neil Jordan is a very talented director, and has not made a bad movie with "Interview with the Vampire," just a misunderstood one. He does no wrong here. Maybe it is Anne Rice's novel, in which I never read. Various things make the potentially intriguing material go awry, and "Interview with the Vampire" is a major disappointment. We expect so much more from such a prestigious cast and talented filmmakers, but the only real accomplishment they achieve is coming up with a creative point of view for an otherwise campy production.