|
|
|
 |
Reviews |
 |
Source:
rec.art.movies.reviews newsgroup
Rating:
 
|
It seems a natural to write a vampire story from the point of view of the vampire and to really explore what it must be like to be a vampire. It must have been done in pulp fiction, though I am not specifically aware of any such story. Fred Saberhagen tried it in 1975 with THE DRACULA TAPE. But the idea became a sensation with 1976's INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE by Anne Rice. This smoky, sensual novel of the relationship between the new vampire Louis and the sublimely amoral Vampire Lestat struck a responsive chord with readers. Since then Rice has become second only to Bram Stoker for popularity of her vampire fiction.
Neil Jordan has directed the new film version of INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE. At first look, it seems a long stretch from his popular MONA LISA and THE CRYING GAME. In fact, viewers who like this film should also see his earlier COMPANY OF WOLVES and vice versa. Each is a unique, dreamlike, and Freudean exploration of the supernatural. That film was a very creative retelling of Little Red Riding Hood as a sort of sexual werewolf story. The two films should almost be seen as a pair.
The story begins in 1791 as Louis (played by Brad Pitt) is a plantation owner who has lost his family and thinks he has nothing left to live for. What he gets is not death but instead is undeath, the gift--if "gift" is the right word--of the Vampire Lestat (Tom Cruise). The two take up living together--if "living" is the right word--on Louis's plantation as Lestat helps Louis through the hardest transition of his life--if "life" ... well, you get the idea. Much of the story is just how Louis adapts to his new state. Eventually Louis is fed up Lestat's indiscriminate killing of humans. He would leave, but Lestat binds him by making the eleven-year-old Claudia a vampire and the third member of the family. Now Claudia will forever have the body of a child--well, a child with an impervious body and sharp teeth--while her mind matures to that of an adult.
The pacing Anne Rice's story, fairly faithfully rendered since Rice herself scripted, is paradoxically both slow and fast. Years seem to go by very quickly to immortals who never change. But the story has an almost Tennessee Williams feel of characters working out deep emotional problems. (Williams, incidentally, started out in the horror genre himself. Some of his plays, like SUDDENLY LAST SUMMER, still show the hand of the horror writer. This film may well represent the sort of thing he might have written had he continued.) The story give us a sensory portrait of how the world is different for the Undead. Much of the film is just concerned introspectively with the condition of being a vampire and with the inter-relationships of the vampires. Lestat accepts his condition and happily goes about the business of killing. Louis is more moral and detests his parasitic inclinations. Claudia is torn between the ways of the two. This is not to say that the entire film is cerebral. There certainly is some action and the plot does advance. But Jordan intentionally makes plot second to style. His story is told with dramatic visual style which takes full advantage of moody settings in New Orleans and Paris. The photography is by Philippe Rousselot, who is known for atmospheric pieces like DIVA, HENRY & JUNE, and SOMMERSBY.
As far as to acting, I would say honors to all, but the most amazing acting award goes to Kirsten Dunst as Claudia. Anna Paquin won an Oscar for far less interesting acting in THE PIANO. I do not know the age of Dunst, but she has to play all the emotions of an adult woman in the body of an eleven-year-old. It sounds like an impossible casting job. Amazingly, Dunst has an adult's acting talent while she still looks the part of a child. I would not surprised if we end up hearing a lot of her in the years to come. Of course there was the whole brouhaha over Tom Cruise in the role of Lestat. Rice was at first very vocal against the casting choice, then later claims to have said that she liked Cruise in the role. I went through the same set of emotions. This is a major departure for Cruise and he plays Lestat with just the right air of flippancy. It is hard to understand how anyone saw it initially, but Cruise is just about perfect for Lestat. Brad Pitt as Louis is fine, as the sometimes bewildered and sometimes vengeful, but always well-intentioned vampire who at least nominally the main character. In smaller roles we have Christian Slater, Stephen Rea (who was also in Jordan's CRYING GAME) and Antonio Banderas. Whatever faults the film has, it is not in the acting.
Neil Jordan seems to make one good film after another on the theme of the sub-culture of people who live outside normal society. As his films go, this is not one of his best efforts. But as far as an exploration of the world of the undead, Anne Rice has nothing to complain about. This film get a +2 on the -4 to +4 scale.
By : Mark R. Leeper
|
|
Source:
rec.art.movies.reviews newsgroup
Rating:
|
"I'm a vampire."
- Pitt to Slater
INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE is a triumph of tone--a masterpiece of mood where atmosphere is everything. Like, say, Tim Burton's BATMAN, the sum here is more impressive than the parts. Forget the scavenger-hunt story and the lethargic line readings of Brad Pitt, Neil Jordan's follow-up to THE CRYING GAME oozes with enough malice to send even the toughest talk show host screaming.
Anne Rice adapts her 1976 novel about a pair of 18th Century vampires to questionable effect. Her dialogue is rich, but cumbersome, and the actors stumble through it better than they should. Best of the bunch is Kirsten Dunst, playing an Orleans orphan taken under the wing of the vampires. She'll get a nomination. Brad Pitt's a loss as Louis (Vampire #1), but Tom Cruise is toothy fun as his amoral, arrogant mentor, Lestat. Too bad he disappears in the second hour, though. His replacement (the smoldering Antonio Banderas) barely registers as a character.
The hide-and-seek story doesn't explain all of what's happening on-screen, suggesting that an earlier cut of the film was more coherent than what's presented here. Someone in the producer's chair probably pruned this baby in the interest of streamlining. INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE feels rushed at 122 minutes and forces the viewer to extrapolate the finer plot plots. Not good.
Condensing the story kills most of the visceral kicks, as well. In the second hour, for example, there's no build-up to the fiery finale; what should be a potent climax is little more than an amusing set piece.
Dante Ferretti's production design is a feast for the eyes; he's just one of the many top technicians who expertly drain the life from this story of death. One question: who's responsible for all the muted dialogue? Don't be surprised if you miss half of what's said.
BOTTOM LINE: Rushed at 122 minutes, it's still the best vampire movie
since Kathryn Bigelow's NEAR DARK.
By : Michael J. Legeros
|
 |
Featured Posters |
|
|
