Interview with a Vampire Review

THE HEADING1) Title of the movie: Interview with a Vampire2)
Style of film (ex. comedy): Fantasy, Horror3)
YOUR star rating out of 5: 4/5

PLOT

1) Briefly describe the plot of the movie (don’t give away the ending)
A 200-year-old vampire named Louis tells his life story to Daniel Malloy, a reporter in San Francisco. He explains to the reporter of his betrayal, heartbreak and thirst that his new life brought him. Louis begins to tell his account of meeting Lestat de Loincourt, being changed, and realizing his decision to become a vampire has “condemned him to hell”.

ACTING

1) Are these characters realistic? At first glance, these characters are obviously not realistic as they are vampires, but the trails and tribulations they go though make them relatable. You have Louis, the reluctant vampire, trying to be good despite his need and want to drink human blood, but at the same time wants to keep his conscience clean. And then there is Lestat, the antagonist, who all but feels guilty for doing what he does and at one point, shouts to Louis that he enjoys it just before taking the life of a young lady who has been lured to their room as Louis watches in disgust. The characters’ thoughts and feelings are definitely relatable, but are put in a world no human knows.

2) Are any of the characters stereotypes? Lestat is the stereotypical vampire; enjoying being the evil creature he was intended to be. Louis on the other hand believes his kind is soulless and this type of “good vampire” has become more and more popular as more vampire books and movies are written.

3) Are the characters well developed? Yes. Though we don’t get to hear much about Lestat’s life, we get a full recount of Louis’s life. As well as you get to see another character develop as a vampire right from the beginning.

4) Are the actors believable? How was their acting? Brad Pitt (Louis) and Tom Cruise (Lestat) embraced their characters extraordinarily well in my opinion. It’s very difficult to doubt the believability of the story when watching them. You can see they really believe who they are and makes you believe it too.

SPECIAL EFFECTS, CINEMATOGRAPHY, MUSIC SCORE, CAMERA SHOTS, EDITING, ETC.

1) Discuss how the technical aspects complement the film? This film was made over a decade ago so needless to say the special effects would have made this movie much better if had been made now, but with what they had, it was done great. There were many well done close up shots to really capture what the characters were feeling. Plus, great camera shots from the vampires perspective to understand what they see.

2) Did anything stand out? Why? This film isn’t very gruesome but for someone like me, any blood is too much so when there we shots in the vampires feeding off humans, I was a little scared. What stood out for me is just that – the way they did those scenes was a little disturbing.

FINAL COMMENTS

1) Should the reader watch this film or not? Support your opinion. The reader should definitely see this movie. It’s a classic vampire flick and also just a good film in general.

2) Is there a particular audience who would prefer the film? This film is mostly directed to vampire lovers, but can also be enjoyed by others. Even if a good vampire story isn’t for you, it’s a good film for some light horror.

3) What are the film’s strengths and weaknesses? I think the overall film was very good, the only weakness I would point out is the lack of knowledge about Lestat, however, the film is based a book series where you most likely get the information that you didn’t get in the film. Still though, there could have been more background on him. Its strength’s though were definitely the portrayals of the vampires in the film. Every take on vampires is different and this is done very well.