Interview With The Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
1920x1080 | 10594.05 MiB | 1080p | |
|
1280x720 | 4478.11 MiB | 720p | |
|
720x390 | 1276.91 MiB | hidivx | |
|
592x320 | 753.87 MiB | divx | |
|
480x266 | 541.38 MiB | ipod | |
|
320x174 | 299.88 MiB | hpc | |
Storyline
TAGLINES
Drink From Me And Live Forever
It hadn't even been a year since a plantation owner named Louis had lost his brother, and now he had lost his will to live. A vampire named Lestat takes a liking to Louis and offers him the chance to become a creature of the night: a vampire. Louis accepts, and Lestat drains Louis' mortal blood and then replaces it with his own turning Louis into a vampire. Louis must learn from Lestat the ways of the vampire.
| Brad Pitt | Louis de Pointe du Lac |
| Antonio Banderas | Armand |
| Christian Slater | Daniel Malloy |
| Kirsten Dunst | Claudia |
| Tom Cruise | Lestat de Lioncourt |
| Stephen Rea | Santiago |
| Virginia McCollam | Whore on Waterfront |
| John McConnell | Gambler |
| Mike Seelig | Pimp |
| Bellina Logan | Tavern Girl |
| Thandie Newton | Yvette |
| Indra Ové | New Orleans Whore |
| Helen McCrory | Whore #2 |
| Lyla Hay Owen | Widow St. Clair |
| Lee E. Scharfstein | Widow's Lover |
| Neil Jordan |
7.30 out of 10 (54310 votes)
Visitor Reviews
"Tell me what you eat, and I'll tell you what you are".
posted on 13 Jul 2009One way or the other, you will be captivated by this very, very 'Freudian' satire on 'non-conventional' relationships, morality, lost love, family and religion.For Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Antonio Banderas and Kirsten Dunst, 'the world is a tomb'. Elite vampires all, they can't seem to 'live' with each other, nor can they live without, and to put the 'nail in the coffin' death is just not an option.Be warned, there's a lot of explicit, intense vampire 'meals' that are just 'loaded' with innuendo.Neil Jordan and Ann Rice have "teamed-up" very well to create a very unique, sophisticated, 'timeless' and certainly a 'biting' satire on modern day relationships.
The best Vampire movie ever
posted on 13 Jul 2009Not very many movies about Vampires are as interesting and unique. First of all I have read some reviews of this film and would like to set somethings straight. The vampires in the movie are supposed to be as graceful and women like because it is in their nature as french men and Vampires. They are very elegant and gentlemanly in there own unique way. The fact that louis and Armand look like girls is only because they are white with death and their eyes are supposed to be that color. Vampires are supposed to be sexual characters that is what gives them half the interest they have. If you have not read Anne Rice's books then you will most likely Not understand this movie because sadly enough the movie does not follow the book but the characters in it do. It is best to have a liking for vampires and their unique charectoristics before seeing such a movie. I enjoyed this film quite a bit, the costumes are beautiful and the makeup is extrodanary. I do suggest this movie to anyone who enjoys Vampire movies at the highest levels. I hope you enjoy the movie as well as I did. Please understand that all comments are personal opinions.
Neil Jordan brings a sad reality to vampirism
posted on 28 Jun 2009***SPOILER WARNING***`Interview With the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles' is a movie helped by the visions of two very creative people. The first is Anne Rice whose vampire novels are full of dread and gloom and try to bring an absolute reality the subject of vampirism. The other is Neil Jordan (`The Crying Game'), a filmmaker who is never makes a conventional movie. He always has a nice twist or turn up his sleeve.The reality is what makes this film work. We sense the day to day boredom and the horror that comes with being a creature of the night that must kill to survive and can never grow old.The story begins in the present as a 200 year-old vampire named Louis (Brad Pitt) grants an interview to a journalist (Christian Slater). His story begins sometime in the late 18th century. Why have all vampires been born in the Victorian era? Aren't there any that were born a caveman or at least during the renaissance.Louis it bitten by a fearsome vampire named Lestat (Tom Cruise) and the movie follows his devastation as he tries to come to terms with what he must do in order to live. The two travel from city to city feeding off the living. At one point Lestat bites a little girl named Claudia and her story is one of the saddest and most potent element of the film.The choice of Tom Cruise as Lestat was not met with much warmth. I, for one, liked his performance here. Cruise has always been an actor willing to let himself look like a jerk but in this one he puts his looks in check. He slips into the character rather well and it never feels like a character role.But the performance that I was most struck by was that of Kirsten Dunst as Claudia a twelve-year-old who lives her life as a vampire and can never grow up. Her character is positively Shakespearean. Dunst plays a twelve-year-old but we sense that inside her is a woman much older and wiser. We sense that inside this young body the mind of an adult who is living the nightmare of not only being a Vampire but an endless childhood in which she can never experience life.The reality of the world of these three characters is brought to life by a brilliant set design by Dante Feretti. I especially loved an underground stone nest with holes in the walls for sleeping quarters that resemble and insect hive. The gloomy cinematography by Phillipe Roussellot (`A River Runs Through It') gives us the smoky, dim existence of a life lived at night.Many critics complained the `Interview With the Vampire' was slow and dull.
I found that its leisure paced worked in putting me into the reality with which these creatures are faced. Because of this the movie isn't heavy on plot. It is about a grim reality that goes on day after day, year after year, century after century living by a horrible code of survival.Rating: ***1/2 (of four)
For Those Who Like Vampires
posted on 25 Jun 2009Interview with the Vampire is an excellent horror movie that sheds light on the emotional and humane aspects of a vampire who is disdainful of his powerful nature to hunt down and kill mortals for their blood in order to survive. While living in New Orleans in the year 1791, Louis, the wealthy owner of a plantation encounters an attractive French vampire named Lestat who understands his desire to end his miserable life after the loss of his wife. In exchange, he must become a vampire so he can live for eternity. Lestat doesn't feel any kind of remorse when he kills people including "evil doers", unlike Louis who prefers to feed on rats and other animals instead of taking lives. Things take a different turn when he finds Claudia and accidentally feeds on her which causes his maker to turn this young girl into one of their kind and keep her as their loving daughter. The tormenting questions that Louis and Claudia have always been asking during these long years are: what is the cause of their nature? Why can't they change as the years progress? All these seem to bother and anger Lestat who withholds information from them, which prompts Claudia to plot his death so she and Louis can escape and find other vampires in Europe and other parts of the world. Neil Jordan and Anne Rice deserved so much credit for presenting this great novel to the big screen, as well as Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Kirsten Dunst, Antonio Banderas, Stephen Rea and Christian Slater for their outstanding performances which were set in San Francisco, New Orleans and Paris.
well-crafted and acted
posted on 29 May 2009From director Neil Jordan comes this captivating descent into the dark, lurid, and at times emotionally wrenching netherworld of vampires. Pitt, a vampire burdened with the emotional frailty and turmoil of a human soul, recalls his two hundred year existence, a life of pain, sorrow, and regret in which he clashed with his suave, charismatic mentor/creator. Based on the novel by Anne Rice, this stylish, violent, engrossing tale is a bit overlong, but made worthwhile by lavish set design, terrific visual effects, and rich performances. Cruise gives a bravura performance as the vampire Lestat, and young Dunst is simply riveting as Claudia. ***
One of the best vampire movies to date
posted on 20 May 2009I(like many others)read the book and fell in love with Anne Rice's writing and the character "Lestat". And when a movie was released, I couldn't wait to see it. Unlike some people think, I believe that no one but Tom Cruise could have portrayed Lestat better. He was everything that Rice made him out to be and more. Brad Pitt was good, though he did tend to whine at times, but Kirsten Dunst was perfect for the role of Claudia. I hope that the sequel "The Vampire Lestat" is turned into a movie with Cruise returning for the title role. No one but him could possibly play it. Truly a great vampire picture.
"Much more of a fascinating story than a horror story"
posted on 17 May 2009I'm not a fan of horror films, and I had always thought that this film was a horror
story since it was about vampires. However some people I had met claimed that
this film wasn't really a horror story. I didn't really take their recommendations
into account until shortly after I'd seen 'Underworld' which to me was a good
action film as well as a dark and Gothic film. So I decided that it was about time I
watched 'Interview With The Vampire'. When I saw this film was fascinated and intrigued right from the start. I felt like I
would have done the same things Louis ( Brad Pitt) had done in his long destiny
into "darkness". I also felt very sorry for Louis he lost the little girl vampire (
played by Kirsten Dunst) whom he was very close to. This film displaysvampires more like fascinating creatures rather than terrifying monsters, so I
think the film can really cast a spell on some people. I also liked the two main
vampires being played by two great American actors Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt.I believe Ann Rice has invented an entirely new way of looking at vampires and
perhaps I'll some of her novels one day. Overall I film I once rejected is now a
film I certainly recommend.
Anne rice rules
posted on 08 May 2009This films rocks! I'm a massive Vampire fan, and The Chronicles are the best. This film captures the book perfectly, Cruise in one of his best perfomances and the same for Pitt. The mood and settings are perfect, everything about this screams quality.As Soon as i saw this i went out and bought all the Vampire Chronicles (Books). Amazing
why do vampires have to whine so much?
posted on 02 May 2009i read the book, liked it okay and then saw the movie. overall, i liked it. it was a welcome change to the usual portrayal of vampires as pure evil, spawned from the devil and with a lot of religious aspects to it. anne rice made her vampires enjoyable and easy to believe in. unfortunately, louis (brad pitt) is a terminal whiner.i preferred lestat, loathe though i am to say that i liked tom cruise. brad pitt just annoyed me and i kept wishing he would come to terms with the fact that he now has to drink blood to stay happy and functional. the star of the show was, by far, young kirsten dunst as claudia. as the film progressed, she gave the impression of maturing and adulthood, even though her appearance never altered.this movie was fairly close to the book, mostly just leaving things out rather than changing them completely. it was far too melodramaitc for my taste, however. why can't vampires just be? by do they have to talk with a lot of dramatic pauses and look at you with smouldering eyes? can't they just be? that, of course, is a personal preference.not a bad movie. good to see with friends, especially when you like to poke fun a the characters. my specialty.
Even more blood-dripping than Dracula.....and better..excellent
posted on 29 Apr 2009This is the second vampire film I have reviewed, and I like them both. The first one was Dracula, which was a beautiful love story and I liked it very much. In fact I liked it so much I decided to watch another vampire flick. And this was even better, one of the most beautiful films ever made. The blood is floating in the entire film, but that's a part of it, it never gets disgusting. The cast was brilliant. Tom Cruise did his best performance ever as Lestat, he was so cool! Brad Pitt does good job with showing Louis' pain. And Kirsten Dunst gave a stunning performance as Claudia, the little avant-garde evil girl. Antonio Banderas, Stephen Rea and the upcomer Thandie Newton was good in their small roles too. Christian Slater also delivers good performance in a minimal role. I have never seen a better vampire movie, and I doubt that the day will come when I do. 10/10
Bloodsuckers Convention
posted on 23 Apr 2009I've just watched this film again, and wow I'd forgotten how powerful and dark it is.There is not a bad performance from any of the actors, easily one of Tom Cruises(Lestat) finest performances and Brad Pitts only better film in my mind was Kalifornia.The film is based around an interview between Christian Slater and Bradd Pitt (Louis) in current day America. Louis declares that he is a Vampire and begins telling the story of his 300 year existance.The main storyline of the film takes place in 18th century New Orleans and Paris. It becomes quite believable that a disfunctional family such as Lestrat, Louis and Claudia could exist in these places without being noticed. The film is full of strong sexual suggestion, especially between the Doll Like Claudia (Kirsten Dunst) and Louis. This adds an intensity to the plotline that keeps you hooked the entire time.Kirsten Dunst really does manage to hold the uncontrolled blood lust and innocence together and slowly throughout the film show more of the woman within a childs body, amazing.The sexual side of things does not stop there, since the relationship between Louis and Armado (Antonio Bandaras) looks decidedly more than just friends! The Vampire has always been a symbol for seduction and female Submission but I feel that this film has captured a human side to the immortal vampire that other films missed.The main point of the film appears to be that even though these characters are vampires, Lestat & Louis are individuals with differing morals. Louis does not agree with drinking the blood of humans, even though he craves it. Lestat enjoys his powerful role as predator and bestower of immortality. Louis wants to understand the purpose of his existance,and why he has become what he has become. Is the vampire any more evil than another predator? Lestat accepts the role of predator on humanity just as the wolf accepts his role in the food chain. Who is right?Thats all I'm going to say for now so just get this out on video.I gave this film an 8. Enjoy
Something I Really Got My Teeth Into!
posted on 02 Apr 2009*Warning: Possible Spoilers*Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles made a great book. No one knew what to expect from the film. Well, this well-made, clever, intriguing story is far better than anyone had the right to expect.The film kicks off in modern day San Francisco where the 200-year-old vampire Louis (Brad Pitt) begins to relate the story of his life to a young interviewer (Christian Slater). It is a tale that begins with the death of plantation owner Louis' wife and child back in New Orleans in the late 18th Century, an event that, for Louis, effectively marks the end of his human existence. The arrival, thereafter, of a vampire called Lestat (Tom Cruise) offers him an escape from his terminable grief with the outside chance of immortality.
Yet, as Louis comes to learn, this grief ultimately pales into insignificance compared with the pain that comes as a consequence of having to slaughter humans in order to feed. Initially he resists, drawing sustenance from rats and other animals, before he succumbs to his condition and sinks his teeth into Claudia (Kirsten Dunst), a young orphan. Refusing to let her die, Lestat instead fashions her into Louis' companion, and thus Claudia becomes his surrogate daughter/lover, a child-woman who remains shackled within the body of a young girl while her brain and appetites grow.Eventually Louis and Claudia plot to kill their maker, and having escaped Lestat, they travel to Europe in search of fellow blood-suckers and meet Armand (Antonio Banderas) and many more at the Theatre Des Vampires in Paris.Interview With The Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles is a film I could really get my teeth (or should I say fangs?) into. The performances are excellent, particularly from the young Kirsten Dunst and the outstanding Brad Pitt in one of his best roles. Although Tom Cruise and Antonio Banderas are underused slightly, they are still impressive in their juicy roles. The editing is very good and the story is well-adapted from the excellent book.Simply fang-tastic!I rate Interview With The Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles 8 out of 10.
The Best Movie I've ever seen!!!
posted on 21 Mar 2009This has got to be the best movie I've ever seen, all the actors played it so damn well and the story is simply the best ever. What more to say? it simply rocks, you gotta see this movie... but if you're a slow minded idiot who only likes comedy, action or horror movies this movie is not for you, but for the ones that can understand movies with a deep meaning you gotta see this movie!
Better than it should be
posted on 21 Mar 2009"Interview with the Vampire" is a lot better than expected.**SPOILERS**Meeting in a hotel room, Louis de Pointe du Lac, (Brad Pitt) recounts for news-reporter Daniel Malloy, (Christian Slater) about his life. Turned by the vampire Lestat de Lioncourt, (Tom Cruise) in 1794 Louisiana, he soon becomes one although he still has a respect for life that makes him reluctant to kill. The more time they spend together, the more he tries to overcome the affliction, and with the help of young Claudia, (Kirsten Dunst) it does help him get over the case. Realizing that there's nothing left in America, they leave for Paris and run into Armand, (Antonio Banderas) another vampire who teaches them the tricks of the trade. When their presence inspires a riot amongst the other vampires in the commune, they realize the need to escape and go back to America in order to be safe.The Good News: This was a nicely pleasant surprise and was a lot better than expected. One of the better examples of this is the film's ability to contain a lot of really nice action scenes. There's the fiery destruction of the mansion, as the more flames spread across the estate the more the realization dawns that there's little escape, and it has a really rousing finale that is really nice and works perfectly. The opera stage show shown is really fun as well, throwing in a bunch of stuff that is creepy and yet operatic at the same time, and the nudity thrown in is really great. Some of the other scenes, including the fire in the bedroom where one of them is set on fire with a huge flame to the night-time hunting in the Louisiana town and the finale to the Paris part of the film is a huge, epic fight that is really great and is one of the film's highlights. The torture method is intense and actually painful, the revenge is fantastic and actually worthwhile and there's also the fact that it's got the majority of the film's big list of kills. That's mainly due to the way the revenge is carried out, but there's plenty to like from this. There's a huge assortments of bites to the neck and arms, a couple are violently set on fire, another has the top half of the body sliced off with a scythe, a couple more are sliced up with a scythe, a couple are burnt to a crisp and turned into dust, couple have their neck broken and there's a really wicked slit throat that gushes a ton all over, and that there's a huge assortment of kills with it's big body count is really worthwhile and makes the other moments all the better. The last one here is the fact that the film has so many good parts that it never manages to get boring or dull. This one has a really nice pace to it that really helps it out and makes for really good viewing. These here are the film's good points.The Bad News: There really isn't much wrong with this one, but there's a pretty big flaw to it. This is the film's manner of portraying its vampires as incredibly whinny and constantly complaining about everything that happens. The reluctance to do anything that usual vampires engage in, from the neck-biting to the supernatural powers are touched over here and there and the same conclusion about the vampires being in that behavior-set is always brought up. That is hardly any way to be able to treat it's vampires, since they're supposed to be very creepy and frightening, yet not so much in here. It takes a lot out of the film since that's mostly how the beginning of the film plays out for the majority of the time in those sections, and it rarely comes up from that. Another small flaw here is that the kills are all done in the same way, and hardly anything else is used in here. It really could've used some variety in here, and it's not detrimental but otherwise, these here are the film's flaws.The Final Verdict: With some really fun moments to be had and only one really big flaw which holds it down a lot more than expected, but is still really good. Give this one a chance if you're into the moodier vampires, a fan of the creative side or those who prefer classy horror films, otherwise heed caution with the flaw.Rated R: Graphic Violence and Full Nudity
beautiful, compelling, unique...
posted on 25 Feb 2009I just watched this film for the umpteenth time on DVD and haven't tired of it one bit. Never one to be easily impressed by a film or won over by gore or special effects, my love of this particular film is rather deep.To start with Neil Jordan is a marvellous director, who has brought us such classics as The Company of Wolves, The Crying Game and The Butcher Boy. This man is a genius of vision and brings out the most honest performances from his cast. I don't think that we will ever see a better performance from any of the actors. It was, unfortunately, Kirsten Dunst's zenith of credibility at such a young age, nothing that she has done since has come close to her brilliantly painful, evocative performance here as the tortured Claudia. Nor is it likely that Brad Pitt's morose Louis will be outdone with any of his other roles (nay, I think Louis even outdoes Pitt's portrayal of Jeffrey Goines in 12 Monkeys). And Tom Cruise has never been so powerful in a role. All three bring wonderfully nuanced subtlties to their roles as the vampire trio and it is enormously compelling and emotionally touching to watch them on their journey.Every detail of this film, from Philippe Rousselot's award-winning cinematography to the wonderfully detailed art direction and Stan WInston's always reliable makeup and effects, are exceptionally created and add to the brooding mood of this film. Without Elliot Goldenthal's sombre, beautiful score which was shamelessly beaten at the oscar's by Hans Zimmer's score from THe Lion King, the film would been very different. The moving string and choral melodies and horns provide such a marvellous atmosphere.The story itself is so heart-breaking and involving. If you let yourself into the world of the vampire (which is rather accessible through the afforementioned cinematic techniques) Interview with the Vampire proves to be a beguiling and unique experience. It is a soaring emotional journey, a quest to not only find the meaning of immortal life, but the very reason for existence.I am greatly moved and satisfied by Interview with the Vampire each time I watch it. It is a great shame that the sequels (which were obviously originally planned to follow on closely from this film - or so the ending suggests) were not handled by the same crew. Queen of the Dammed (actually the third book in the Vampire CHronicles - they skipped The Vampire Lestat) is rather pitiful and lacks the depth and intelligence of Interview with the Vampire. Hopefully if others are to be made, Neil Jordan, or someone at his level, will take the helm. If not, at least we are left with this beautiful film, for there is no other vampire film quite like it.
Tom is Lestat
posted on 07 Feb 2009Saw this originally on TCM - loved it, bought it, have watched it many times. It is atmospheric, reasonably true to the book, compelling, passionate and filled with good acting -as well as the leading men Tom and Brad, Kirsten Dunst is excellent and Stephen Rea portrays malice beautifully. I will even forgive them for Armand not being a Botticelli angel. It led me to the books - loved them too. Can we just knock on the head the idea Anne Rice didn't like Tom as Lestat?(which I've seen quoted several times) Here's a quote from her - for the rest see Miscellaneous on this page: From the moment he appeared Tom was Lestat for me. He has the immense physical and moral presence; he was defiant and yet never without conscience; he was beautiful beyond description yet compelled to do cruel things. The sheer beauty of Tom was dazzling, but the polish of his acting, his flawless plunge into the Lestat persona, his ability to speak rather boldly poetic lines, and speak them with seeming ease and conviction were exhilarating and uplifting. The guy is great.
Loved it
posted on 04 Feb 2009I'm not normally a fan of vampire movies but I found myself really loving this movie. The casting was extraordinary, the designs and elements were fantastic, and everything about this was great. Yes there were some incorrect errors and such, but all in all, it did not matter. This movie is a wonderful piece of artwork to all that worked on it. Its pure Anne Rice written all over it, and I'm happy that not too much was tampered with than for the book, I know a lot was, but to be it didn't matter much; I loved the acting, the casting, all of it. I'd definitely recommend this movie, if you want to see a great vampire movie; this will do the trick.
What a magnificent film
posted on 20 Jan 2009One hell of a movie! The direction is pin-point perfect and the acting by both Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt is absolutely brilliant. I have watch this movie more than 10 times and would watch it more and more, because every time you watch it you never get bored and is very interesting. The whole direction of it is fast and doesn't make you bored.
Maybe a worthy novel, but hardly a worthy film
posted on 20 Jan 2009Neil Jordan's Inverview with the Vampire strikes me as one of those films which can only be appreciated if you read the novel, which I have not. Like Kenneth Branagh's Frankenstein which came out in the same year is not a horror film, it is a glamorous Gothic drama, but not a very good one. Quite frankly it is boring, without direction, and features too much dialog that which is intended to to be poetic or melodramatic, but instead strikes me as silly. Both Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise are total miscasts, and the way they deliver their dialog, you'd think they forgot that they are in a historical setting. It is a mistake to address this as a vampire flick. Vampire flicks are fun, slick, and are meant for nothing more than fun. Whatever, Interview with the Vampire is trying to accomplish, remains buried beneath layers of a weird, and poorly executed story. As a result, Interview with the Vampire says nothing.It starts in a tiny hotel room, with a journalist played by Christian Slater. He is interviewing Louis, a dapper young fellow, who proceeds to dictate the story of how he became a vampire. It started when he met L'estad de Lioncourt in 18th century France, who offered to show him the the ways of darkness. From there the story becomes a series of strange chapters, decade after decade, century after century. If I was in Slater's shoes I would be asleep, long before Louis finished his story.One of the differences between novels and movies is the amount of story. A book can take as much time as it wants, while a movie needs to cut things down a bit for structure. It is for this reason that I am sure Interview with the Vampire is an excellent and very intriguing book. As a movie however, it is a dud.
When Hell becomes Reality
posted on 28 Jul 2009I feel this movie is a nice visual metaphor of living with a lingering pain we have never been able to remove and probably never will. It´s a painful display of hopelessness in the face of anguish from which there is no escape. Personally, I liked the performance of Pitt, Cruise, Rea and Slater, but I agree with those who think that -despite his acting talent- Banderas was a casting blooper. Overall, the music, the lighting and the cuts -such as Rea´s sinister smile after Pitt realizes his companions have been calcinated in the well- were excellent and made this a quality film. Cruise´s feast at the end? Marketing.