Queen Of The Damned (2002)

Woah boy, there is a lot to unpack here. This is what I call an EPIC review. I must confess, I do actually own this movie. Not because it's good, mind you, but because since I"m a fan of Aaliyah's, it's one of the few treasures I keep of her.
This movie took years of development. After the success of Interview With The Vampire, Anne Rice and the studio heads begin clashing over how to adapt The Vampire Lestat and Queen Of The Damned.
After the ending of Interview, the movie is left open for a sequel to continue on with Lestat and Daniel. But during the years of development, Tom Cruise declined to return for the role of Lestat, scrambling for execs to make another move. Neil Jordan was in the process of making the sequel, The Vampire Lestat, but it fell through.
So it was around 1998 when initial meetings to adapt the two novels began. A LOT of plot elements was cut out and Anne Rice was extremely unhappy with the results. It's one of the many examples of a movie studio screwing over the actual writer of the source material. They didn't even invest her time into being the screenwriter of the film, which in my opinion, would've helped.
It was somewhere between 1999 and 2000 where pre-production started WITHOUT the consultation of Anne Rice. Seriously, they needed her helping hand but oh well.
The result is...kind of a mess.
The filmmakers decided to combine both The Vampire Lestat and Queen Of The Damned. This caused to lose a lot of important characters in these two novels: Gabrielle de Lioncourt, Nicolas de Lenfent, Magnus, Santino, Eric, Aaron Lightner, Daniel Molloy, Makere, and especially Louis de Pointe du Lac.
Okay, let me explain the plot of the two novels. Again, spoiler alert for those of you who haven't read The Vampire Lestat and Queen Of The Damned, so take a lookout if you can.
Let's start with The Vampire Lestat:

The story follows the character of Lestat de Lioncourt from his early days as an impoverished nobleman to his triumphs as a vampiric 1980's rock star. In the novel, he meets and falls in love with aspiring violinist Nicolas de Lenfent where they live together in the streets of Paris, trying to make it as artists.
One night, Lestat is kidnapped and bitten by the elder vampire Magnus, who kills himself in a pit of fire and leaves Lestat his fortune. Let me stop here...

In the movie, Marius is the one who finds and sires Lestat. And there is no mention of Nicolas, so I guess Marius takes that role as well. Let's continue.
To protect Nicolas and his family from his new vampiric lifestyle, Lestat abandons them to seeking out into his own journey as a working actor in Paris. To make up for this, he showers them with gifts and promises in written letters. However, he soon hears the news of his beloved mother's sickness, and through an act of desperation, he sires his mother from an agonizing death. And here's another pause...

Gabrielle was one of the most intriguing characters of the book yet she is nowhere to be found in the movie. There's also no mention of Lestat's father, who actually appeared in the book version of Interview or his five brothers. So without Lestat not having a family at all, I guess Marius takes on the role of Gabrielle as well. Moving on...
Lestat and his mother continue their adventures in Paris until he is threatened by the vampire coven Children Of Darkness run by their leader Armand/Amadeo for exposing himself as a vampire during a performance at the Paris theater. So the coven kidnaps and tortures Nicolas to punish Lestat. After a heated debate between Armand and his cronies over the old laws of their kind, Lestat and Gabrielle rescue Nicolas, however, Nicolas' sanity is never recovered. Lestat reluctantly turns Nicolas into a vampire but at the cost of their companionship. And so,  Lestat gives Nicolas the ownership of the Theatre des Vampires bringing along the surviving members of The Children Of Darkness as the actors. He and Gabrielle decide to leave Paris and have Nicolas in Armand's care. But Nicolas becomes increasingly erratic and difficult to deal with, unable to conceal his vampiric nature. Armand constrains him in a cell and cuts off his hands to prevent him from playing his violin so manically. Nicolas demands to perform a funeral sacrifice for him or else he'll burn down the theater. The coven agrees and sets up a sabbat where Nicolas dances into the fire, committing suicide. Nicolas' prized violin is sent to Lestat as a keepsake. Armand finds Lestat and Gabrielle where he tells them of the ancient times before vampires were made and how he was saved and sired by the ancient vampire scholar and painter Marius from poverty and slavery. Until The Children Of Darkness led by the vampire Santino invades their home, putting Marius on fire and kidnapping Armand. Through months of psychological torture, Armand gives into the beliefs of the coven, eventually gaining enough knowledge to become the newly ordained leader of The Children Of Darkness. Marius has recovered from his injuries but is said to be somewhere in the Mediterranean islands. Intrigued by the idea of Marius, Lestat carves hidden messages on a rock, hoping Marius might find him. Let me mention that Armand is a vital part of the story, yet, in the movie, he's cut down to a side character. More on that later...
Abandoned by Gabrielle as she sets off to the jungles of Africa, Lestat goes into a slumber for a couple of years after being moderately burned by the sun. But he is soon found by Marius where he stays at his mansion by the Mediterranean islands. Marius begins to tell Lestat of his past. He was a roman scholar who was captured and sired by the God of the Groves. Marius is instructed to travel to Egpyt to become the new caretakers of Those Who Must Be Kept, the original vampires, Akasha and Enkil.
There is in no way, shape, or form, they were going to fit this backstory into the movie. But then again, we know nothing of Marius, other than the fact that he is just some random vampire who chose Lestat to be sired.

And what about the scene when Lestat awakens Akasha with the strum of his violin? No, it's not like in the movie where Lestat just randomly finds a violin. It was actually Nicolas' violin that awakes Akasha. So yeah, Nicolas was an important part of the story but within the development of the film, there was no way he could fit into the narrative. Though it would explain why Lestat chose Louis in Interview because he reminds him so much of Nicolas yet Louis isn't in the movie so it doesn't matter anyway.
The full gist of the movie is Lestat as a rock star. Sure, that's what drives the plot because Lestat uses his celebrity to reveal that vampires do indeed exist but we never fully get into the detail of Lestat's life like the book did.
So let's get into Queen Of The Damned:

The main source of the plot is about the red-haired twins. Pretty much all of the characters who are connected to the story have vivid dreams of the red-haired twins, which eventually brings them all together in the narrative. None of this is in the film adaptation, even though, in the book, there is a lot of backstory between The Twins and Akasha. Okay, let me break it down:

1. Maharet is in the movie but Mekare isn't 

2. The only interaction Maharet has with Akasha is at the climax of the movie, forgetting that Akasha in the book did some pretty horrid things to Maharet and her sister, prompting Makere, appearing out of nowhere, to exact revenge on Akasha at the end of the novel.

So there was a chunk left out of the movie, and sure, the filmmakers probably cut down some of the plot to give the movie a flow but time is this movie's enemy to which the character of Makere would have trouble fitting into the narrative. There was so much to explore with this and it was disappointing how the filmmakers unjustly neglected it. 

Okay, let's break down the characters because that's the REAL reason why fans are so upset with this adaptation. 

First and foremost, let's start with Lestat. As you can see, he definitely does not fit the description of Anne Rice's vision.

In her own words, she insisted on making sure Lestat had blond hair and blue eyes, but no, the filmmakers went against her word. To be honest, this version of Lestat resembles more of Nicolas de Lenfent. During the process of casting after Tom Cruise declined to reprise his role, plenty of young, promising actors were considered.

Josh Hartnett. He definitely would capture Lestat's charm and sensuality.

The late, great Heath Ledger. Yes, he definitely would've been a perfect choice. Since he had a breakthrough role in The Knight's Tale, the role of Lestat would've been right up his alley, capturing Lestat's presence and sex appeal. 

Wes Bently. I think I would agree on this one too. He does have that sort of icy vampire look about him and would've worked well with what he was given.

But this all boils down to Stuart Townsend. Fun Fact!

There is a character named after him in her novel, The Witching Hour, which has connections to the Vampire Chronicles series. By the way, I'm reading the book right now!

Anywho, Stuart Townsend was...meh. I do think he's a good enough actor, I've seen him in movies and television shows where he is really good. But unfortunately, his performance in Queen Of The Damned falls flat. What I like about Tom Cruise's performance in Interview was that he gave a sort of grace to his acting. He wasn't cartoonish or over-the-top. However, with Stuart Townsend, his performance comes off a bit hammy. He just wasn't convincing to me. 

If you think they got the description of Lestat wrong, wait till you see Marius. He is described as having icy blue eyes and pale-white blond hair but the actor, Vincent Perez, has green eyes and short brown hair. His characterization was all over the place. In the book, although he is a vampire, he has high morals, adamant about never harming innocents.

Marius in the film version is Nicolas, Gabrielle, and even Lestat rolled into one. He never has a clear, distinct personality that separates from the other vampires and it's confusing to tell whether he's morally good like he was in the novel. Not to mention he and Armand have an intense, loving relationship, which is never explored in the movie. 

As for the actor Vincent Perez, he's good with what he's given and knows what type of movie he's in.

 Here we have Jesse Reeves. Oh, Jesse. Dear lord, Jesse. If the filmmakers succeeded in ruining a character, Jesse Reeves would be at the top spot. She has been relegated to the ultimate film cliche: The Bland Love Interest. It's unfortunate because I actually think that Jesse Reeves is one of the most interesting characters of the novel and she's sort of treated like the audience surrogate. There is a lot to break down with her.

First off we are never properly introduced to her. She just happens to work for The Talamasca and she just happens to know about the secret world of vampires. There is no ounce of character development other than the fact that she's related to Maharet, who is her great, great, great, great grandmother. Not to mention, Jesse is described as being between the age of 34 and 35 in the novel. In the film adaptation, she looks to be around college-aged. The actress playing her was around 24 at the time. I think this would've worked best if Jesse just graduated from college and she just happens to run into Aaron Lightner who gives her an apprenticeship at The Talamasca. Speaking of which, in the book, the reason why The Talamasca chose her because of her family heritage and secret psychic powers where she can also contact spirits. The film in no way shows that Jesse has psychic powers. And in the movie, it shows Jesse reading Lestat's diary as a way to connect to Lestat's narrative. But in the book, she reads Claudia's diary and even encounters her ghost at the townhouse of Lestat's coven. 

Since we got into the topic of Lestat, I have no idea why they would make Jesse his love interest. To be honest, he has no chemistry with her and the romance feels a little forced. I never bought it. The only interaction Jesse has with Lestat in the novel is her briefly making out with him at his concert and towards the climax. I guess the filmmakers thought that since she is a primary protagonist of the book it would make sense to make her the love interest in the movie. 

Okay, I might spoil things but Lestat in the movie isn't the one who sires Jesse. It was actually her aunt Maharet when she gets injured by a vampire at Lestat's concert and gets turned halfway through the story rather than the ending of the movie. 

Marguerite Moreau was a bit bland. No-fault against her since the script doesn't really give her much to do. Here, you have a character with so much backstory, so much character development yet she is reduced to a typical Damsel in Distress Love Interest. And don't get me wrong, I've seen this actress in much better projects where she has a good enough range but unfortunately, in this film, she gives a rather dull performance. 

Lena Olin was sadly wasted as Maharet. She is yet another important character of the book who is unjustly cut down to avoid pacing issues. The filmmakers also seem to forget that Maharet had a twin sister in the novel which was very vital to the plot. 

Let's break it down:

Maharet and Mekare were these two ancient witches who were the sole reason why vampires exist. You see, there were these mysterious spirits they would call upon. Energies, so to speak. Some good. Some bad. Their special talent attracted the attention of Akasha and Enkil, The queen and king of Kemet, Egypt, offering them to visit their kingdom. The twin sisters refused, sensing something sinister about them. But their second visit came in the form of brutal violence once they discover the twins' familial ritual of eating their dead mother's heart and brain, accusing them of being savages. And so, Maharet and Makere endured senseless acts of torture and later sexual assault by the king's steward Khayman, by the orders of the king and queen. This resulted in Maharet becoming pregnant. Makere, through an act of revenge, called upon the spirit Amel, a spirit with a taste for blood. The spirit targets the king and queen and it just happens that a vengeful army attacks and stabs both of them, causing the spirit to turn them into the First Blood Drinkers. Furious at what the curse did to them, the queen sentence the twins to execution, cutting one's tongue out and gouging one's eyes out. Khayman feeling guilty over his part in the rape, helps the twins by siring them, eventually becoming some sort of Witch-Vampire hybrid. The twins were later put into stone coffins, drifting off into the ocean. Makere heading west and Maharet heading east. Ever since then, Maharet has been searching for Makere where she contacted an archeologist to look for her findings. 

There was no way the filmmakers would fit this all into one movie. It's a shame. The story of the twins is what drove the plot forward. 

However, the situation with Makere is that she only shows up until the climax of the book to get her revenge on Akasha where her and Maharet perform their ceremonial ritual of eating the queen's brain and heart. And so it is actually Makere who becomes the new Queen Of The Damned.

The climax in the movie, however, wraps up things pretty quickly and after Akasha is defeated, Maharet, somehow, turns into a statue in waiting slumber. I...guess that make sense even though I can't wrap my mind of how Maharet just suddenly is waved off in the narrative. 

David Talbot, played by Paul McGann, was barely in the movie as well, even though, he is the head of The Talamasca. Not to mention, he looks a lot much younger than his book counterpart who looks to be in his 40's than his early 80's. They try to fit him in the movie as much as they can but he still comes off as unimportant to the story. 

Now we have Armand, Mael, Khayman, and Pandora who are reduced to throwaway side characters. You never know who they are because they just randomly show up at Lestat's concert with no introduction. Unless you read the movie credits, that's all you'll get out of these characters is just their names. 

Okay, let's start with Armand. It seemed that he changed his appearance since the last movie, somehow, miraculously fitting the description of his book counterpart. 

But if this was an official sequel to Interview, some viewers may find it confusing to how he suddenly has red curly hair and, somehow, morphed into a teenager. Most of his story arc in Queen Of The Damned involves Daniel Molloy. Daniel, adamant to find Lestat in New Orleans, encounters Armand in Lestat's house. They sort of have an on and off romantic relationship, traveling from England, New York City, and Miami. But then Armand finds Daniel dying from alcohol poisoning, after crashing from hotel to hotel. That's when Armand turns him into a vampire while on a plane to San Francisco. I found the relationship interesting and would've made a compelling story of its own. However, seeing that the film adaptation of Interview ended with Lestat and Daniel, it would've been cool to see their dynamic on-screen, with Lestat reaching his status as a rock star while Daniel will be his trusty assistant, writing his biography and being his personal publicist. But sadly, Daniel is nowhere to be found in this movie, and Armand is reduced to a minor character, pretty much forgetting the fact that it's established in the Vampire Chronicles that he is one of the main characters.

Khayman was also a very important character. In the book, he was the king and queen's chief steward and is actually the biological father of Maharet's child. He has obviously no lines in the film and is unceremoniously killed after he drinks Akasha's blood.

Mael, too, was very substantial character in Maharet and Marius' case. He was the druid priest who abducted Marius to be the New God Of The Grove and protected of Those Who Must Be Kept. He is also the lifelong companion of Maharet and seeks to protect Jesse's well being. Just like Khayman, he has no lines at all and he is quickly dispatched after drinking Akasha's blood.

Lastly, we have Pandora who serves as an initial character in the novel. She is one of Marius' cherished lovers and sets foot on her own journey to discover Akasha's return and rescues Marius after being injured by Akasha. She actually has her own spin-off novel where her backstory is told in full detail. You think that the filmmakers would consider keeping her alive. But nope. They give her the ax without any interaction with Marius.
Such a shame how these characters were wasted in this film.

But now the time has come to save the best for last. The grand role of Queen Akasha was truly an important one. Now I have to assume the casting possibilities were just rumors but let's break it down anyway...

Halle Berry was an ideal choice being the most sought-after actresses in Hollywood and even won an oscar upon the release of Queen Of The Damned. She is a good actress but I can't help but compare to her lackluster performance as Storm in the X-Men films and her cringy performance as Catwoman, a few years later. I'm thinking of how she would portray Akasha. Would she be hammy or over-the-top? I can't seem to get my mind around that. I feel like with roles like Storm and Catwoman, you have to have a command or some type of elegance, and seeing how Halle Berry portrays these characters, I don't think she would be the right fit for Akasha.

Jada Pinkett Smith was also an ideal choice. She would mostly capture the presence of Akasha, being fierce and intimidating like a lioness on the prowl.

Then there's pop singer Samantha Mumba who would later appear in a film adaptation of a novel, The Time Machine. I never have seen her act before, but I can see her fitting into the role.

Vivica A. Fox is a maybe for me. I never really saw her play a villain before if you count films like Batman and Robin or Kill Bill, but she's a good enough actress to be an ideal choice.

Rosario Dawson has a command about her that would've embraced Akasha's majesty.

Vanessa Williams would've been a possible runner-up. Her elegance and divine versatility would bring a charming yet venomous layer to the role with icy goodness. But...

Aaliyah was made for this role. She was by far the best part of this movie. But let's focus on the character of Akasha first. She is way more blood-thirsty and ruthless than her film counterpart, even BEFORE she becomes a vampire. She is an extreme misandrist, going so far as to kill her king in order to rule her vampire clan. I really don't want to go into graphic detail of she annihilates half of the male population in the book but it is brutal, her blood-thirst knows no bounds.

Though all my praise will go to Aaliyah's portrayal as Akasha. She was definitely fit for this role and it's the only second one after starring in Romeo Must Die.

Her performance was everything! Sure, she only appears in the movie halfway through but her powerful presence alone sets a certain command to her masterful range. And to be honest, I think she had better chemistry with Stuart Townsend than Marguerite Moreau.

When she has her introduction, it's like, "Step aside! The Queen has arrived!" It was truly magical to watch. Aaliyah exudes royalty and embraces her soul as a regal, majestical Egyptian ruler. Just look at this scene here. It says it all...

This was her last hurrah and I will forever congratulate her for making this role hers and doing it her own way. All Hail Aaliyah, Long Live The Queen.

Now let's talk about the music, which is the most important aspect of the book and movie. The music in the film has this Goth/Nu-metal sort of style, similar to musical acts like Korn, Orgy, The Deftones, and Marilyn Manson. Boy, has music changed since then. I think the filmmakers used this sort of music to appeal to a teenaged demographic, who are mainly associated with that type of genre. You see the time where The Vampire Lestat and Queen Of The Damned was set in was very specific. The years the novels were released was between 1985 and 1988. By the time Lestat became a rock star, it was the year 1984.

In the early 80s, there was this fashion trend called The New Romantic look where rockstars would dress in these 17-century outfits resembling a modern-day Mozart. In addition to that, rock concerts were made to be more theatrical, operatic, and cinematic.

This is why Lestat would fit well into this era, eluding to singer Adam Ant, David Vanin, lead singer of The Damned (no pun intended), singer Sting, and the singer Prince. So I think this would've worked better if the movie was set in the 80s, which would make it less dated than it is but I digress.
The writing is really poor. The original script has problems with pacing and was losing a lot of focus on the story. The shooting script is a lot much than perceived giving it much more flow but it leaves out a lot of character development and most of the story is cut and dry until Akasha arrives. For instance, Lestat's backstory is basically a retread of Interview With The Vampire, lacking most of the meat of his story on the waste side. The writers also seem to forget there was a character in the novel called Baby Jenks who gets killed by Akasha early into the story and Lestat has dreams of her dying. But then again, there were too many characters in the novel that wouldn't make it in this hour-long film.  Sure, the book has it's problems too, especially with the unresolved tension between Armand, Santino, and Marius. But there wasn't too much to hold onto when it came to developing Lestat and Jesse who appears to be the main characters of the movie in favor of more action and suspense.

The script was written by TV writers and I could tell. This feels like a TV movie with high production values. I was not impressed with the special effects, especially when it comes to vampire abilities. When they fly or run at a fast pace, it has this really bad and extremely dated slow-motion effect that makes the movie look cheap. And there's no detail in the vampire makeup. Just plain ole pale skin without any originality or imaginative spark.

The directing is so, so. Boy, do they needed Neil Jordan for this because most of the directing was pretty bland and run-of-the-mill. The director is mostly known for his work on Battlestar Galactica, so his sort of directing style could fit at home for an action movie but not for a gothic horror melodrama that Anne Rice created.
Seriously, everything from the acting, the writing, the production value, just seemed bland and forgettable and only Aaliyah was the one who actually brought life into the movie. It's really disappointing how this film turned out.
Anne felt that this would've worked better as a miniseries and I totally agree with her. Queen Of The Damned was set up to be this epic turning point for all the characters to join as one. And I feel there should've been more build-up to it with a prequel attached before what was to be Queen Of The Damned. There were too many poor choices and too many setbacks that made this film a butchered mess.
Let's hope in the future (*wink wink*) that if an adaptation of this story is in the works, there needs to be proper care and consideration put into what made the Vampire Chronicles so fascinating. Let's hope that...it's done right this time.
My Last Word: If you're a fan of the books and the 1994 film, you might not like this one but if you're a fan of vampires and interested in the vampire lore, this could be a so-bad, its' good sort of watch if you're in the mood.

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!

THE KARDASHIANS/JENNERS HISTORY OF RIPPING OFF BLACK WOMEN & THEIR NEGAT...

The Truth Will Be Revealed...