I recently read Anne Rice's famous book, and enjoyed it immensely; then I rented this movie version, and enjoyed it ... not so much.

The trouble is that "Interview with the Vampire" is a very cerebral book that deals with tough topics like existential dread, our right (or lack thereof) to kill, the nature of "good" and "evil," and the existence (or lack thereof) of God. Unfortunately, mainstream Hollywood has never been very good at addressing such tough topics, particularly not in blockbuster movies like this one. Mainstream Hollywood also isn't that good at doing sex scenes, which is another big problem when you're adapting a sexy book.

With most of the novel's philosophy hacked out, and the sensuality toned down, "Interview with the Vampire" ends up being a movie with not much to say, and not much reason to exist. Sure, the movie makes a few short forays into philosophical territory, but I think it's fair to say that 90-95% of the book's thoughtful content is absent. Also missing are a couple of my favorite sequences from the book - namely, Louis' attempt to confess to a priest, and the creepy Eastern Europe segment with the revenant.

But even if I hadn't read the (far) superior book, I still think I would've disliked this movie. At least half of the cast is all wrong, for example. Brad Pitt gives an awful, lethargic performance as Louis (no, introspective characters don't have to be so dull), and Antonio Banderas is positively cheesy as Armand. Fortunately, Kirsten Dunst and the not-at-all-miscast Tom Cruise lend considerable energy to the film, capturing the essence of their characters far more successfully than Pitt.

On the plus side, the film is very lavish, with beautiful sets and costumes and a suitably eerie music score. The makeup is also awesome, and there is a refreshing lack of stupid digital effects (which, of course, have completely taken over all contemporary "event" movies). With all the impressive attention to detail on display, I'm surprised that the filmmakers got so much of the substance wrong.

Honestly, I'm also surprised to see so many positive reviews of this film, particularly coming from fans of Rice. If you think that "Interview with the Vampire" is only about *depressed vampires*, then this is the movie adaptation for you. But, as I said above, I think the novel is really about the search for morality and meaning in human life ... the bored vampires are just window-dressing for Rice's exploration of big philosophical issues. In the absence of those issues, all this movie can provide is shot after shot of vampires in frilly shirts biting ladies' wrists...
I recently read Anne Rice's famous book, and enjoyed it immensely; then I rented this movie version, and enjoyed it... not so much. The trouble is that "Interview with the Vampire" is a very cerebral book that deals with tough topics like existential dread, our right (or lack thereof) to kill, the nature of "good" and "evil," and the existence (or lack thereof) of God. Unfortunately, mainstream Hollywood has never been very good at addressing such tough topics, particularly not in blockbuster movies like this one. Mainstream Hollywood also isn't that good at doing sex scenes, which is another big problem when you're adapting a sexy book. With most of the novel's philosophy hacked out, and the sensuality toned down, "Interview with the Vampire" ends up being a movie with not much to say, and not much reason to exist. Sure, the movie makes a few short forays into philosophical territory, but I think it's fair to say that 90-95% of the book's thoughtful content is absent. Also missing are a couple of my favorite sequences from the book - namely, Louis' attempt to confess to a priest, and the creepy Eastern Europe segment with the revenant. But even if I hadn't read the (far) superior book, I still think I would've disliked this movie. At least half of the cast is all wrong, for example. Brad Pitt gives an awful, lethargic performance as Louis (no, introspective characters don't have to be so dull), and Antonio Banderas is positively cheesy as Armand. Fortunately, Kirsten Dunst and the not-at-all-miscast Tom Cruise lend considerable energy to the film, capturing the essence of their characters far more successfully than Pitt. On the plus side, the film is very lavish, with beautiful sets and costumes and a suitably eerie music score. The makeup is also awesome, and there is a refreshing lack of stupid digital effects (which, of course, have completely taken over all contemporary "event" movies). With all the impressive attention to detail on display, I'm surprised that the filmmakers got so much of the substance wrong. Honestly, I'm also surprised to see so many positive reviews of this film, particularly coming from fans of Rice. If you think that "Interview with the Vampire" is only about *depressed vampires*, then this is the movie adaptation for you. But, as I said above, I think the novel is really about the search for morality and meaning in human life... the bored vampires are just window-dressing for Rice's exploration of big philosophical issues. In the absence of those issues, all this movie can provide is shot after shot of vampires in frilly shirts biting ladies' wrists...