Interview with the Vampire (1994)

Now the moment you've all been waiting for, the movie that was ingrained in me since childhood, I present to you...Interview with the Vampire.

Published in 1976, Anne Rice's bestselling novel changed the image of the modern-day vampire. When watching the film Dracula's Daughter, Anne Rice envisioned them as sensitive, elegant, tragic creatures who questions the morality and philosophy of life while giving in to their animalistic urges. Interview with the Vampire met with varying degrees of success and a film adaptation was in the works. The project had been in development hell with Anne Rice wanting Rutger Hauer in the role of Lestat. It wasn't until the success of the film version of Bram Stoker's Dracula that moviegoers had a sudden interest in the vampire genre. So on the eve of 1992, Warner Bros. was able to secure the rights after being sold to Lorimar.
Neil Jordan, fresh of the success of The Crying Game (one of my favorite movies), got on board to direct. He was intrigued by the script, proclaiming it to be like no other and slightly theatrical. Neil Jordan agreed to direct on the condition that he gives his own vision to the script and the result...is a masterpiece!
This is by far, the best book-to-screen adaptation we've had in over a decade.
The movie does a good job of capturing the feel of the novel, catching the essence of Anne Rice's world dripping from the screen. It's marvelous.
It's a film that was made at the right moment and at the right time when Hollywood was going for more niche genres. How I like to describe Interview with the Vampire is a historical, gothic, romantic horror drama. And it's done exceptionally well.
The casting is near perfect. I thought all of the performances were great with everyone being in tune with their characters, even if it's from the most unlikely of actors at the time.

Let's start with Brad Pitt as the titular vampire.
In the early days of casting, Anne Rice suggested French actor Alan Delon in the role and fun fact!

To avoid Hollywood's supposed homophobia, Anne Rice decided to genderswap the role of Louis to a woman and she even considered either Angelica Huston or the singer-actress Cher. Cher was a runner-up and was in the midst of working on a song for the movie's soundtrack called Lovers Forever, but wound up being rejected by the producers and some years later would be released on her album Closer to the Truth.
Though as the years progressed and when the film broke out of development hell, Val Kilmer was considered but turned it down. Then came Brad Pitt.

He was and still is, one of Hollywood's bonafide sex symbols. This was at a time where he wanted to break out into more versatile roles, starring in films like Cool World, True Romance, and Kalifornia. Originally, Anne Rice wanted Brad Pitt to swap roles with his co-star Tom Cruise but it was decided he was more fit for the character of Louis. And of course, Brad Pitt does an incredible job.

He internalizes Louis' inner pain and carries his performance with a gentle touch and fiery passion. In the original novel, he is grieving over the death of his brother whereas, in the film, he's grieving over the death of his wife and unborn child through childbirth. I guess this was a way for the filmmakers to give Louis' backstory more of an emotional punch. I think the change works as this will clash into the narrative in the film as Claudia in the guise of his surrogate daughter.

Brad Pitt did a good job of making the character sympathetic. Where there is a coldness in his exterior, there is sorrow and regret in his interior. I couldn't think of any other actor who carried the role like he did.
But for Anne Rice, there were plenty of actors for the role of Lestat.

Anne Rice's first choice was Rutger Hauer, who's known for being in 80's cult classics like Blade Runner, Ladyhawke, Flesh and Blood, and The Hitcher. Alongside him was Richard Gere and John Travolta. I could see Richard Gere playing the role but John Travolta is a little...meh for me, I don't know. However, Rutger Hauer was the more definitive choice. You can just tell he'll pull the role off, having a sort of Shakespearian style to his acting. Though as the years went by into pre-production, Anne Rice thought he was too old at the point. Ironically, Rutger Hauer would later play the lead vampire antagonist in the 1992 film version of Buffy The Vampire Slayer.
But oh no, it doesn't stop there. A slew of actors was considered for the role.

First off, there was Russian ballet dancer Alexander Godunov in the early casting, who looks exactly how Lestat is described, and given that he was a ballet dancer, would perform the more physically challenging stunts. Then there was actor John Malcovich would've also been a good choice which I solely judge on his performance in Dangerous Liaisons, that he would capture Lestat's allure and trickster-like playfulness. Actor Peter Weller was considered who I guess would've been a fine choice, but unfortunately, the only few roles I know of him is as Robocop. Though I have seen his other movies, such as the critically-lauded Naked Lunch, so I think he would've handled Lestat well. Jeremy Irons was approached for the role but didn't want to spend hours behind make-up after he finished filming the 1993 adaptation of House Of Spirits. To me, he would've added a unique flavor with his trained theater background, however, in the same year, he'll have another iconic role as the voice of Scar in Disney's The Lion King.  Academy Award winner Daniel Day-Lewis was considered but dropped out at the last minute.

British actor Julian Sands was a runner-up. Anne Rice, the fans of the novel, and I, myself, agree that he would've nailed it as Lestat. After seeing him in movies like Gothic and Warlock, he definitely has an enchanting presence and charm that would've fit well into Lestat's qualities. Unfortunately, he was not well known in the states.

Enter Tom Crusie. Anne Rice was NOT happy about this. I guess because she thought that Tom Cruise was this generic, all-American, mom and apple pie-kind of actor who would never pull off a role like this.

Come to everybody's surprise, he actually did an incredible job. Dare I say it, but I think this is one of Tom Cruise's best performances.

He is exhilarating as Lestat, capturing his boyish playfulness and seductive charm. He plays his role with such ease and gracefulness, even Anne Rice was singing his praises. I'm surprised he wasn't nominated for a Golden Globe. Yes, he was that good. Hopefully, when there is a television miniseries in the works (*wink* *wink*) if there is an actor in mind of Lestat, let's see if he could blow it off-the-park like Tom Cruise did.

To my knowledge, Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise won for Worst Screen Combo at the Razzies, though I never really had a problem with the chemistry. I thought they played off each other well. Sure, it's hard to notice the romantic aspect of their chemistry, though, other than that, I didn't think their collaboration was so bad they had to win a Razzie for it.

Speaking of awards, we have Golden Globe supporting actress nominee, Kirsten Dunst as Claudia. Just like Lestat, the role of Claudia was a very important one. A number of young actresses were on the casting call.

First, there was Christina Ricci who was the most sought-after child actresses at the time. Her range is masterful and I think she would've done a great job.

Then there was Dominique Swan, another child actress with a sharp talent and had an ethereal presence that compliments Claudia's description.

Julia Stiles was also a great choice because of her passionate emotional range.

Natalie Portman was considered. Judging by her intense performance in Leon, The Professional, She was a good fit for the role.

Lastly, we have Evan Rachel Wood who was a runner-up. I definitely would've seen her as Claudia. She would've totally killed it. Though ironically, she would play the vampire queen Sophie in the supernatural drama True Blood.

Finally, Kirsten Dunst was the first to be chosen and as much as I like the aforementioned actresses, her performance blew me away. This role was made for her.

To be an actress of her age to stand between Hollywood heavyweights such as Brad Pitt and Tom Crusie, that is truly inspiring. Which is why she was nominated at the Golden Globes and deservedly so.

Not only Anne Rice made the character of Claudia iconic, it was also Kirsten Dunst who brought her to life on screen.

Here, we have Antonio Banderas as Armand. Now here's where the casting of Armand gets tricky. In the original novel, Armand is a teenage boy around the age of 17 with curly red hair. But the filmmakers decided to cast the much older Antonio Banderas in the role. Fun Fact! Antonio actually auditioned for the part of Dracula in Bram Stoker's Dracula, two years prior before Gary Oldman helmed the role.

Although it would be nice to see an actor fit Armand's description, Antonio Banderas did a good job. He does have an alluring presence about him that make the character work and even if he doesn't fit the actual description of Armand, he does capture Armand's powerful essence.

The role of the interviewer, Daniel Molloy, was originally going to be cast with River Phoenix in mind, but his death in 1993 prevented that. Just imagine having Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise, and River Phoenix in the same film. That would've been golden. And I feel that an actor of his stature would fit well with Anne Rice's vision. But as the casting went with Stephen Dorff in mind who would later ironically play the vampire antagonist in the 1998 film Blade, The filmmakers went with Christian Slater instead.

Christian Slater did a serviceable enough job, though, in the sense, Daniel is more of a reactionary character but with a little bit of build up that would add later into what was going to be an official sequel to this movie, which I will discuss later.

Now I would love to talk about the makeup and special effects done by the one and only Stan Winston. He is a master of his craft putting in an amazing amount of virility in his work.

I get a sort of Hammer Horror feel when it comes to the production and scope of the movie yet with a slight touch of the modern nineties aesthetic. Ah, the simple days of practical effects.

The makeup effects are beautifully designed and detailed. To make this effect convincing, the actors had to hang upside down in order for the makeup artist to trace out the blood veins to enhance that otherworldly vampire look. But every so often they had to do this every 30 minutes. Upon learning about this, I totally understand why Brad Pitt had such a terrible time working on the film.
Now, this leads me to one of the most climactic scenes of the movie...Louis' revenge. This is one of the tragic parts of Interview because it shows that Louis is all alone in his detriment, seeking the humanity he once lost. 
In the original novel, the events of this scene plays out differently. I must warn you, I have a habit of spoiling things when it's important to my reviews, so if you haven't read the novel or seen the movie, just go back in a couple of days or so if you can, but, other than that, here I go.

*spoilers*

It turns out that Armand's coven of theater vampires are a bunch of vigilantes who believe that if a vampire is revealed to be an outlaw, they must be punished. Once they come to the notion that Claudia has killed a vampire, they take this opportunity to take Louis as a prisoner and execute Claudia and her new sire, Madeline, by sunlight. In the novel, it turns out that a disoriented Lestat has survived his ordeal, following Louis and Claudia as he seeks revenge. Armand manipulates him by setting up a mock trial to punish Claudia for attempting to kill him, though, in the film, there is a deleted scene where Louis encounters Lestat through the tunnels of Paris. But it turns out that Armand betrays Lestat and throws him off of a balcony, all so he can have Louis for himself.

After Louis takes his revenge on Santiago and the vampire actors, he and Armand become companions for decades, though, there is a bit of resentment on Louis' behalf. But in the film, Louis upright refuses to be Armand's companion, knowing that Armand could've saved Claudia if he wanted to. So, Louis sets off and continues his journey alone.

By the end of the interview, Daniel suddenly has the desire of becoming a vampire much to Louis' disdain.

When Louis furiously rejects his offer of siring him, Daniel frantically drives in his car and listens to the recorded tapes, when all of a sudden, Lestat appears behind him and bites his neck. Lestat takes hold of the vehicle and promises a bewildered Daniel of a prosperous new life...

*spoilers end*

I give all my praises to Neil Jordan for putting in his passion into this project. His direction is outstanding and there's not a flaw in his game. The costume design, the production design, the writing, the characters. Neil Jordan and Anne Rice put in thought, frame, and consideration into the making of this movie.
The ending is left open for a sequel that sadly never came to fruition. We continue on with Lestat as the main character in Queen Of The Damned but we never actually continue on with Louis nor Daniel, which is really disappointing. I'm gonna do some deep digging when it comes to Queen Of The Damned because that movie was a HUGE missed opportunity. That's a story for another day.
However, this film was perfect all around. It's a vampire movie at it's finest and it's right up there with Bram Stoker's Dracula. I think I run out of great things to say about this movie. It's none-the-less an artistic achievement in 90's cinema.
My Last Word: an all-out classic!