1 line
1.5 KiB
Plaintext
1 line
1.5 KiB
Plaintext
Interview' has been a long time for me one of those movies you keep meaning to see until you finally do, years later. Now that I have, I can only express my disappointment. I don't think the slightest attempt was made to capture the romance, the passion, and the pure ambience of the story. Now I do concede, as has been said many times, that if a novel is good enough to be made into a movie, it's probably not even worth it. It's old news that the book is always better than the movie. I grant this, but much more still could have been done with it. This movie should have been an homage to the novel, but it was in fact a disgrace.<br /><br />However, as a film it did have some redeeming qualities. The cinematography was beautiful, the acting superb. Tom Cruise is in his element here (larger-than-life characters) and they don't get much larger than the Vampire Lestat. I cannot envision anyone else take on the role the way he did. Pitt I was surprised and impressed with, though I was doubtful at first of his being cast. Kirsten Dunst shows amazing talent. I have a common gripe Banderas as Armand. Though, incredibly, he does some acting, he's a terrible choice for the part. And I would have liked to hear them all adopt a French accent.<br /><br />The ending was horrendous, the worst possible example of creative license I have ever seen, and gave an awful impression of the real story.<br /><br />Definitely read the books; don't bother with the movie if you're looking for more than performance. It is truly not worth it.<br /><br /> |