Too much of everything
Strong and Moving!
The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.
Continuing my plan to watch every Tom Cruise movie in order, I come to Interview With The Vampire (1994)Plot In A Paragraph: Louis (Brad Pitt) a vampire tells his epic life story: love, betrayal, loneliness, and hunger.At the time of release, this was not like any other vampire movie I had seen. In movies like Lost Boys and various others, being a vampire is portrayed as almost fun. This movie goes into what a curse immortality is, in a similar way Highlander did, admits all the decapitations. Cruise does not play the main role in this one, but he does something all great actors can do. Play the best part in the movie and steal every scene. The best role in a movie, does not need to be the lead role. It just needs to be the most memorable, and Cruise dominates proceedings and truthfully the movie is duller when he is not on screen. Which sadly is almost all the last half of the movie. Brad Pitt is not an actor I really care for. There are exceptions, but generally he bores me. This is one such example. I must point out Kirsten Dunst,who was rightly nominated for an Oscar. Her performance is superb. If it was not for Cruise she would have stole the movie. Antonio Banderas is OK, whilst Cristian Slater doesn't really have much to do. I never realised Cruises future MI2 co star Thandie Newton was in this. I enjoy the use of Guns N Roses cover of Sympathy For The Devil over the end credits too. I actually let the credits run. I wonder why there was never a sequel, it's certainly open for one, and the potential is there. Maybe it wasn't a big enough hit. Finishing outside the Top 10 highest grossers of the year. As Interview With The Vampire grossed $105 million at the domestic box office, to end the year the 11th highest grossing movie of 1994.
I thought this movie was great. Lovable characters, great actors, fun and different personalities and backstories, and a great plot. The only real problem I had with the film was that I couldn't hear a lot of it. I had my TV turned up to 50 and still couldn't make out what they were saying. But all and all it was a great movie.
Many people in my regards are stuck with the direct circumstances, de facto with the vampire world. I think it is like we won't see the wood if we look at one tree, only, and certainly we will miss one of the best presentation of character evolution that Brad Pitt achieves. Both Lestat, played by Tom Cruise, and Luis, played by Brad Pitt, are very complex and subtle characters. The directing is great, and the overall atmosphere is like it pulls you right into the spot as if you would be a third person on the scene. There are no missed cuts that would disturb the mood, that the film intends to create. It's very great movie from every aspect!
If you enjoy dark, angsty, well-dressed, Gothic homoerotic vampire movies then you will probably like 'Interview With A Vampire'. I don't think this was a bad movie at all, but I was expecting more given the current 7.6 rating and good reviews. It didn't seem very original and had little true substance beneath the good performances given by Brad Pitt and, especially, Kirsten Dunst. It felt like it could've been very good if it had been more subtle with it's messages and spent more time on real character development. No one in this movie seemed like real people and behaved very unrealistically. They are so dramatic they aren't relatable anymore. I get this is a vampire movie, but still. I can't say exactly what my problem with this movie is, but it might be that it simply isn't my kind of film. Good movies are, in my opinion, supposed to have more to them than this. I haven't read the book, but I stand by my first description. Dark, angsty, Gothic, and homoerotic. That's about it. (But Kirsten Dunst was very good. Watch it for her)