Latest Horror Movie Headlines

The Test of Time: Interview with the Vampire (1994)

Apr. 18, 2013by: Ryan Doom

We all have movies we love. Movies we respect without question because of either tradition, childhood love, or because theyve always been classics. However, as time keeps ticking, do those classics still hold up? Sothe point of this here column is whether of not a film stands the test of time. Im not gonna question whether its still a good flick, but if the thing holds up for a modern audience.

Director: Neil Jordan
Starring: Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise, and Christian Slater

Ok, ok, so were all sick of vampires, and most of us blame the teen market for killing it (though 99% of the blame falls on Hollywood for its relentless push of the material). Its too bad, too because for the 100 or so years before Twilight sashayed into our lives, the vampire was a bad ass thing, something to keep the kiddies awake at night and make lesser intelligent people (or paranoid folks) poop their pants at their very mention. Ah, that was the day. And while I think its time old fang tooth return to the coffin for a decade or so, perhaps with Tom Cruise returning to theaters its time to examine one of last big budget vampire films and see if it holds up today.

Under the examination: Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles.

Two fancy looking lads ready to suck people dead.

THE STORY: A dude named Louis (Brad Pitt) from 1700s Louisiana loses everything he loves and gives up on life. But just before a random, evil pimp takes him out, a dashing vampire named Lestat, who happens to look like Tom Cruise sporting a blonde wig, bites him and gives him a choice to live or die. From there, they engage in many light-hearted bloody romps until they add a young girl to their vampire family. One day, a nasty family feud erupts and Louis and the girl split from Lestat. The depart for Europe to search the globe for the existence of other vampires. Oh, and that lengthy story is framed around Louis giving in interview in present day to reporter Christian Slater, who famously replaced River Phoenix after he passed.

WHAT STILL HOLDS UP: First and foremost, I think the performances hold up more than anything. Despite the horrendous hair in the film (do all vampires need to look like former 80s hair band wash-ups wearing 1770s gear?), everyone brings their A game. And they should have. Shot on a massive budget of $60 mil (back in 94, remember), this was quite a gamble. Released two years after Bram Stokers Dracula, this was a big budget film that didnt have a thing to do with the classic Dracula story. It was directed by an art house director hot off The Crying Game, and it was scripted by Interview novelist Ann Rice (who had never produced a screenplay before or after). Oh, and there were strong homosexual undertones involving two Hollywood star A-listers (back in 94, remember). Regardless, the gamble paid off and everything is done on a higher level, from sets, to costumes, to the story. The result is a truly epic film, spanning centuries, continents, and characters. Its one of the few films Ive ever seen that managed to combine beauty, elegance, and blood. Thats a tough combo to pull off when selling it to the masses.

Oh, back to the performances. Ive often though of Pitt as a stiff actor, but much like fellow wooden statue Keanu Reeves, if dude finds the right role, his style works. As Louis, Pitt plays the straight main, artfully finding the balance between maintaining humanity and avoiding his new found animal instincts. He even managed to put some pain in his eyes. On the flip side, theres Thomas Cruise, who usually plays Thomas Cruise by looking fierce and doing a lots and lots of running. But again, give put him an interesting role and offer him a challenge, hell make that film his bitch. Here, as the immortal Lestat, he chews scenes like mint gum. Despite the goofy wig, Cruise is, dare I say, morbidly fun. Take one scene for example. After Louis bites the neck of Spidermans girlfriend (Kristen Dunst in her first role), thinks her dead, and falls apart, in walks Lestat to lighten the mood by picking up Dunsts dead mother and treating her to a final dance: There still life in the old lady yet!

Cruise has looked better...

WHAT BLOWS NOW:The film feels dated. For something set mostly 100+ years ago, it feels strictly mid-1990s. Perhaps its the fact Christian Slater is in it and he reminds Brad Pitt that he has plenty of tape for his interview, but more so, I never liked the narration Pitt gives over the movie. The narration is not as bad as say the original cut of Blade Runner (where Ford reads the narration as if he was three whiskeys in and had a dinner date in 30 minutes), but I wonder if the film would have felt bigger if Jordan allowed the viewer to share the vampire eye and judge for themselves. Or maybe it would be just a boring ass movie, which it times, it is. Then again, Louis scams us anyway. While Slaters reporter interviews, he asks what Louis saw through his vampire eye. His reply: No words can describe it. Might as well ask heaven what it sees. No human can know. Scam I tell you. For a movie with a narrative throughout the film to ensure viewers understand the vampire point of view, Louis skips on perhaps the most interesting part, and the narration ends up sounding forced and too convenient at times. Rices screenplay attempts to pack in too much material from her novel, leaving a movie thats too often slow, especially when compared to modern, hipper horror flicks. They dont make them like this anymore (says all old people).

Pitt demonstrates his slicing skills.

THE VERDICT: Theres been a lot of vampire movies, so much so that the genre is nearly dead. However, Interview with the Vampire stands as one of the most beautifully violent and artful vampire features ever released by a major studio. The movie isnt so dated that it ruins the film, but it still ends up feeling old and more of date than it should feel. For the modern audience, it still works as the thing has got more love and humanity than five Twilight films could muster up. Then again, Interview has a serious shortage of jean shorts. And thats a loss that Lestat and Louis will never forget.

GET INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE DVD HERE

GET INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE BLU RAY HERE

Even Lestat looks surprised that the movie turned out well.

MORE FUN FROM AROUND THE WEB

Spitting Bullets
Not registered? Sign-up!
Or

10:05AM on 04/19/2013

It's good

People who say a movie is dated, hates movies. There is history with film, and to say something is dated, really trivializes the artistry that goes with it. When I see the Mona Lisa, I don't say man, this thing is dated. It's kind of a silly statement. IWTV holds up. I think it's underrated.
People who say a movie is dated, hates movies. There is history with film, and to say something is dated, really trivializes the artistry that goes with it. When I see the Mona Lisa, I don't say man, this thing is dated. It's kind of a silly statement. IWTV holds up. I think it's underrated.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
8:24PM on 04/18/2013
I don't get bored by it even though iam not a fan of vampire movies.worth alone watching it for cruise and pitt combo.both should do a kick-ass buddy action movie
I don't get bored by it even though iam not a fan of vampire movies.worth alone watching it for cruise and pitt combo.both should do a kick-ass buddy action movie
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+3
5:32PM on 04/18/2013

Awful elaboration by mr. Doom doom...

Come On dude, this article is hopeless... your fact are dull...have we seen the same movie ?
Come On dude, this article is hopeless... your fact are dull...have we seen the same movie ?
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
6:50PM on 04/18/2013
Care to back that up with anything substantial?
Care to back that up with anything substantial?
+2
5:31PM on 04/18/2013

Awful elaboration by mr. Doom doom...

Come On dude, this article is hopeless... your fact are dull...have we seen the same movie ?
Come On dude, this article is hopeless... your fact are dull...have we seen the same movie ?
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
3:43PM on 04/18/2013

Actually just watched this last week.

Yeah, it feels like it was made in the '90s, but I can hardly fault it for that. Loved the line about how this has more love and humanity than all five Twilight movies put together. The only thing I can really fault it for is that it does feel kinda slow; otherwise, this is rightfully a classic. It managed to humanize vampires without losing sight of the fact that they are still, at the end of the day, monsters. Anne Rice may have problems of her own, but she can still write circles around
Yeah, it feels like it was made in the '90s, but I can hardly fault it for that. Loved the line about how this has more love and humanity than all five Twilight movies put together. The only thing I can really fault it for is that it does feel kinda slow; otherwise, this is rightfully a classic. It managed to humanize vampires without losing sight of the fact that they are still, at the end of the day, monsters. Anne Rice may have problems of her own, but she can still write circles around Stephenie Meyer; Lestat and Louis alone each had more depth than the entire Cullen family. If anything, you should've given more love to Kirsten Dunst (one of the best child actors I've seen) and noted how Christian Slater's character completely missed the point of everything Louis was trying to tell him.

I did a full review of this movie over on my blog, if you're interested:
[link]
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
1:47PM on 04/18/2013

ITS A CLASSIC NOW

I agree with your comments about the excessive amount of material put in the script, trying to condense a very long novel, but you can say the same about many adaptations. For the rest I think the movie is almost perfect.

Its surprising you talk about Cruise and Pitt (the former is a perfect Lestat the later is a very bland Louis IMO) but you ignore the best performance of the film, yes by "spider-mans girlfriend", she is terrific here and not because is a child but because is an adult in
I agree with your comments about the excessive amount of material put in the script, trying to condense a very long novel, but you can say the same about many adaptations. For the rest I think the movie is almost perfect.

Its surprising you talk about Cruise and Pitt (the former is a perfect Lestat the later is a very bland Louis IMO) but you ignore the best performance of the film, yes by "spider-mans girlfriend", she is terrific here and not because is a child but because is an adult in the body of a child and the understanding of the character she demonstrates along the movie is quite impressive.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
1:41PM on 04/18/2013

Oh yeah!

Hell yes it still holds up, while today I am annoyed with the overabundance of angsty vampires...this one had angsty vampires with brilliant performances. Combine that with a great score, and great sets...yup this one is still a winner.
Hell yes it still holds up, while today I am annoyed with the overabundance of angsty vampires...this one had angsty vampires with brilliant performances. Combine that with a great score, and great sets...yup this one is still a winner.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
7:38AM on 04/18/2013

Blade Runner

Nice article, but I'm gonna take issue with the Blade Runner comment. Having watched both the original theatrical release (with narration) and the almost completely unwatchable mess that is the Director's cut (without narration), I just don't get the hate that Harrison Ford's narration gets. Yes he admitted that he didn't want to do it, but I felt the voice over was the only thing that made the movie understandable.

Oh, and IWTV definitely holds up over time :)
Nice article, but I'm gonna take issue with the Blade Runner comment. Having watched both the original theatrical release (with narration) and the almost completely unwatchable mess that is the Director's cut (without narration), I just don't get the hate that Harrison Ford's narration gets. Yes he admitted that he didn't want to do it, but I felt the voice over was the only thing that made the movie understandable.

Oh, and IWTV definitely holds up over time :)
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
View All Comments

Latest Movie News Headlines


Top
Loading...

Mistress Of The Week

More
Ramsey, Laura