Wednesday, April 17, 2024

Interview With The Vampire

Time to warm up for Abigail this Friday and I'll tell you now, never have I ever seen this movie all the way through.

Now I have seen bits, once upon a time as a youngin' channel surfing deep in the night and coming across some hey hey material which was...interesting to discover that's what is between a woman's legs but uhh, boy I put myself in a position just now. Movie sign!! Interview With The (not A) Vampire came out in a fairly popular decade for the genre in the 90s, recounting the life or erm, unlife of Louis who has been soaking up the nights from 1791 to the then present day of 1994 as he divulges major events of his existence. How he was made a vampire by a real sociopathic bloodsucker named Lestat, their differing opinions on hunting, a young girl named Claudia is thrown into the mix, and Louis seeks answers about his own kind. It's truly a novel story that does engage you and it was a bit of a shock to learn this was just the first book in a series of 12 novels by Anne Rice, and it seems she was quite pleased with the finished product. I have to agree, the sets and costumes alone are incredible wearing the period piece cinema style on it's sleeve for the vast majority of the runtime, the acting is good, the effects by Stan Winston though not in your face or bombastic are unique and pretty cool, you can tell this movie had a significant budget and used it wisely. I know people could make fun of Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise, and Antonio Banderas as nosferatus but in all seriousness they treat the material seriously and do convey emotion. Yet even I will admit the movie gets melodramatic at points, Louis is a very broody vampire having an existential/morality crisis, he wishes to feed on animals rather than humans no doubt setting the precedent for Stephanie Meyers years down the road, it's a whole thing but Brad does decent work. I still hold true to the fact that the older he gets the better acting he gives. Now it is kinda weird seeing Tom as this regally dressed, morally bankrupt, beast of the night and the whole relationship between Lestat and Louis easily can be seen as straight up husbands especially when Claudia is in the fray, but if the author herself signs off on the performance I'll take it. Kirsten Dunst as the bloodlusting chomper Claudia is a solid performance from her at just 11 years of age, she has big moments to sell the horror and rage at what she has been transformed into and I bought it, she has an arc to her and changes up the dynamic while still being her own character. I will not speak badly of Antonio Banderas, firstly because he did fine work and second I don't want Guillermo to throw shade at me, but I was taken aback how little screen presence he has really not until the 3rd act so it was short but decent. Fair and due props for two elements: the first being I like how the movie balances both classic and modern, it really sells that old world feeling while coming back to more contemporary periods. Second it kinda put back the horror into vampirism, it is ridiculously easy to potray it as more romantic and sexy than scary but it confronts that yeah it seems like those ladies are riding the orgasmatron ride when bitten but then it turns to blood and screams and it's disturbing! It really is fucked up! It shows that lives are being taken, and I just haven't seen that barely at all in these types of films. Even just a smidge of introspection in a vampire movie? Practically unheard of. So I applaud the movie on those two fronts strongly. I know it's one of the corner stones of this dark and blood soaked phenom which even in and of itself has layers to the mythos and powers of vampires, and while it's no grand film it's certainly a very good one. I'd give it a solid 3 stars, 7/10! What new spore of monstrosity will the ballerina vampire unleash? I will let you know!

No comments:

Post a Comment