Interview Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES PLOT SUMMARY
After falling out with his editor, a fading political journalist (Buscemi) is forced to interview America's most popular soap actress (Miller).
| Sienna Miller | Katya |
| Steve Buscemi | Pierre Peders |
| Michael Buscemi | Robert Peders |
| Tara Elders | Maggie |
| David Schecter | Maitre'd |
| Molly Griffith | Waitress |
| Elizabeth Bracco | Woman at Restaurant |
| Stacy Dorning | Man at Restaurant |
| Jackson Loo | Fan at Restaurant |
| muMs da Schemer | Cab Driver |
| Doc Dougherty | Other Driver |
| Donna Hanover | Commentator |
| Wayne Wilcox | Hunky Actor |
| Danny Schechter | Political Pundit |
| Philippe Vonlanthen | Autograph Seeker #1 |
| Steve Buscemi |
7.00 out of 10 (5211 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Starts out strong, then starts to meander and then...
posted on 29 Jul 2009..slowely becomes contrived and repetitive.The concept of this movie is an old one. I'm not sure which movie was the first to bring it to the silver screen, but as recent as 2006 we had 'Five Fingers' with Laurance Fishburn which, like this movie, doesn't exactly pull it off.The one that most definitely does pull it off is of course 'The Interview' from 1998 with that other Matrix icon: Hugo Weaving. I've never seen the original Dutch version by van Gogh, nor do I wish to. Watching a Dutch person trying to act is like watching a bad TV commercial trying to to be artistic.Steve Buscemi is a wonderful actor and proved with this film that he can also write. The trouble with the movie is that near the end it loses focus too much, there are too many illogical scenes and we already know what is about to happen.I personally like my movies with at least a satisfying ending. And although the performances were quite strong, the movie could have been much better if they had worked on the ending a tad more. It felt like they got tired after writing the first 3/4 of it and then just gave the rest a good once over.Too bad, 6/10
A sort of extended version of the final sequence from "Last Tango"
posted on 09 Jul 2009I loved this: It had the electricity of that last sequence from Last Tango, and extended it for the duration of the film; the anarchy, the back and forth, the unbridled playfulness.It's a beautifully written, directed, acted, shot and edited theater piece. Check it out for the roller coaster theatrical energy and professionalism; and because of the production values and attention to the demands of the film medium, it works just fine as a movie as well (thankfully!).And, I should add; it was nice to see Buscemi playing something straight for a change. He so often gets cast in "concept" pieces that straightjacket him. It's odd: "Interview" is a concept piece, too: Except that Buscemi is allowed to breathe here, and that's so nice to see. It's nice to be reminded every now and then that he can hold his own in this regard; that he can play a human being.And he really can.
Kind of pointless
posted on 09 Jul 2009This movie is weird. It starts out interesting enough with Steve Buscemi playing a political reporter who has to do a story on starlet Sienna Miller and can't really hide his contempt for this.But it doesn't go anywhere. It's a chamber play, 90% of the film take place in the starlet's loft. The two of them go back and forth and the producer's would probably try to sell this as a soul striptease, or an emotional tour de force, but it's totally pointless.The dialog most of time is artificial, both characters say and do things that just feel unnatural. And all those dark secrets they're supposed to reveal in the process are boring and disappointing. The screenplay is not funny, it's not clever or philosophical, neither dramatic nor mysterious.And after almost 90 minutes of this you ask yourself: why make a script-driven movie if there's nothing to say?
Good in a "quaint little drama" way
posted on 02 May 2009Steve Buscemi directs, acts, and co-writes a small Indiewood movie with Sienna Miller about a political journalist who ends up interviewing a Hollywood star he knows next to nothing about. At first they don't like each other, and then after an accident they find themselves in her sprawling studio apartment going through the levels of emotion and attraction as becoming two people physically attracted but absolutely not meant for each other.It's a nice "short-story" sort of film, the type of narrative that fits into a short story but managed feature length. For the most part it was interesting and fun, especially since I'm a pretty big Buscemi fan. I liked it most because Buscemi played an jerk-after-my-own-heart, a venomous commentator who doesn't realize that half the problem is that he's as shallow and unimportant as his detested subject. Sienna Miller was all over the board.Except for a rough and unnecessary twist-form of ending, it makes a nice little dramatic comedy, a great exercise in acting, and a fun Indie-mentality small film. Recommended for people who just want a quiet night with some wine.--PolarisDiB
Impressive portrayal of dysfunctional interaction
posted on 30 Apr 2009This film is about a political journalist's unconventional interview an actress who is known for who she sleeps with rather than her work.I was completely captivated by the film. "Interview" is quick to get down to business, and within 10 minutes of the film, all the character and plot ground work is already laid down. I was the most impressed by the script of the film, despite only 2 people being in the film, it never felt boring. The tension and power struggle between the two is portrayed very well. Katya is an unstable person, highly self centred and has no respect for others. She is ambivalent to most issues, such as asking Pierre to leave and then to manipulate him to stay a few seconds later. She is emotionally labile, switching from like to hate within seconds, manipulative and thinks dichotomously. Katya provokes so much counter-transference in me, I kept thinking "How could she do that". Together with the substance abuse and her chronic fear of emptiness, she is truly disturbed. Whoever wrote the script must have worked with a psychiatrist, as Katja's behaviour and speech is quite suggestive of borderline personality disorder.Sienna Miller is really good in her portrayal of Katya. At first I thought she was the laughing stock of the film as she was deemed to be "playing herself", an actress who is known by reputation rather than her work. Through her portrayal of Katja, I am impressed that she used this exact stereotype to overturn what people thinks of her.I am genuinely impressed by this film. It is a tight 80 minutes of dysfunctional interaction.
Movie about nothing
posted on 26 Apr 2009When you go to see this movie you could expect good dialogs, good acting, good story -- and it also seems that way. The story reveals more and more details -- why, who and how -- and you get interested how it will go and how it will end. But at the end... quite a surprise, it appears that the time spent was just a waste, because movie was made about, well, literally nothing.I don't get it why not even to make the movie about nothing, but actually to make a remake about nothing. In retrospect the dialogs looks fake and not believable, the same goes for the story, actors played well but it hasn't saved the film.
has the same appeal, and the minor drawbacks, of modern theater
posted on 18 Apr 2009Interview, a remake of the Theo Van Gogh film from a few years back, is a taut tightrope act between two characters who can't stand one another and seem somehow fascinated all the same. Whether or not that fascination, or even that resentment, is genuine is also part of the sort of guessing game; is she really giving out who her real self, or is she actually mopey? The dialog is revelatory though, the kind that makes for great theater, where we're given two characters and a whole bottle of neuroses poured out into a one-night thicket, which is probably a convention too at this point with theater. But Buscemi makes it compelling cinema, for the bulk of it, before it starts to reel into the realm of the twisty-psychological guessing game- final twist included- that should seem natural but feels a little more of a contrivance. You really can't stand these people (or actually Miller's character), but you never want to look away from what they'll do next.It's about a political journalist (Buscemi) assigned to a "fluff piece", begrudgingly, with a hot young starlet of B-movies and TV (Miller), and after a bad dinner interview, or would-be interview, and a bad knock on the head in a taxi cab as Buscemi is leaving the restaurant, she invites him up to her place to clean his wound and suddenly the interview starts up again. Curiosity, coy word games, and the search for some kind of truth- about work, love, oneself with drugs, and the little dark secrets that come out of nowhere, take up what is 3/4 of the film's running time in the loft. One might wonder why this film needed to be because of Van Gogh's original film from years before (which, by the way, had the actors playing their characters with the same names, and as a real serious actor playing against a real TV star).But Buscemi, as writer, director, and actor, is never one to stop his form of weird fascination too. He's such a strong presence in Interview because he remains the 'voice-of-reason' even as his character drinks and drinks and tells a tragic story that didn't really happen like it was told. And Miller gets the juicy mind-f*** role, where she can go between all the roles that an actress goes through in melodrama while peeling past the layers to show, well, even more layers. By the end we probably don't know her any better than when she sat down for a drink at the restaurant, except perhaps that she loves getting into character and messing with someone who has no idea who she is, in work and in life.When Interview is at its best, it combines fine performances with a beat after beat of dialog that does a double-cross: it's playfully self-aware of the situation, but at the same time the two characters go for truths about one another that take people sometimes years to get at in 'real' relationships. That it's "game"-ness almost leads it into feeling like an indie-movie lark goes without saying; it's small, compact, and with enough to say in 82 minutes without overstaying its real-time welcome.
Good movie
posted on 08 Apr 2009I think, the movie is all about revenge. A simple interview turns out to be a war of minds and egos. In the end, we know all the deepest secrets of the interviewer, and absolutely nothing about the star. Sienna Miller disguises herself very successfully and misleads Buscemi, making him reveal himself; lose his cocksure appearance and his fake credentials. Surprisingly she does all these with honesty and her honesty beats up the hypocrisy of the other. It makes you keep watching and does not let you lose track of the dialog's in spite of the one shot in one room. Good dialog's, good acting, good movie. Do not play the game with someone who can play better.
"The lies we tell each other"
posted on 23 Mar 2009INTERVIEW is such a timely film for the "celebrity" hungry world of today in journalism with the need to grasp "each and every morsel" of information about a celebrity that will sell magazines or newspapers. And Sienna Miller is tremendous in her role of Katya, a young "with it" actress who lets it all hang out and then she encounters an INTERVIEW like no other. Steve Buscemi and Miller light up the screen with an intensity and dialog that is ripping, angry and very much reflects what is happening at this moment of time on wanting to nail the perfect story.However, the twist at the end of the film is a wonderful scene and once again, Sienna Miller is at the top of her game in handling "the lies we tell each other" photographed in the glamorous loft settings of New York. What a powerful film and such chemistry between two great actors, Buscemi and Miller. So, will there be another INTERVIEW, or is this the final one?? Only Katya can answer that question.
Playing Cat and Mouse
posted on 21 Mar 2009Interview is the latest in the long tradition of films that treat the audience to a verbal match of wits, a psychological joust, often between the only two people in the entire film. Hard Candy is another recent example that comes to mind and I will admit to liking that one more than I did Interview.For some reason it is very entertaining to watch people manipulate one another on screen, trying to guess what, if anything, is actually true in what is taking place. But in this case I found that I didn't really care that much about these two characters, although I recognize that both Bescemi and Miller put forth admirable acting jobs. In the end they both seemed rather empty and ruthless, not really worth the time they took from my life.Just last night I watched Sienna Miller in Factory Girl, another portrait of a Beauty Gone Bad, only this time not getting to spiral up and over at the end. Is it only my imagination or has on screen smoking once again become de rigueur for the young chic; Miller smoked up a storm in both films and while it may have been historically accurate for portraying Edie Sedgwick, I could have done without it in Interview. I had hoped that we, as a society, were done subliminally glamorizing that particular self destruction.
Tricky Question
posted on 30 Jan 2009When Pierre sits down and tells Katya that he hasn't seen any of her films and that he usually does journalism related with politics, the actress is a little disappointed. She is a sensation; beautiful woman with a TV show and some B-Movies but truly better known because of the people she sleeps with and her sex scandals…Kind of like Sienna Miller, and Sienna Miller plays her. After a brief discussion and other events, a talk in a restaurant becomes a talk in Katya's apartment, and a long one. Now "Interview" begins, which covers a conversation that is everything but what the title declares. And when I say everything, I mean just about everything that can occur in an hour and twenty minutes. "Interview", directed and starred by Steve Buscemi, at first seems something like "Out of sight", where opposite attract, but then it turns into something like "Tape", where we experience various plot turns in a little space in a short amount time. However, in the end this film is not like "Tape" either, although it has similarities I'll explain later. First, the differences. "Tape" is a movie about a relationship; "Interview" is a movie about relationships, in general. "Tape" puts everything in the table with honesty; "Interview's" characters seem to be hiding things all the time and at one point the movie becomes a deception game, a competition where the more intelligent wins. Don't get confused, there's also a relationship in the movie; a relationship of two opposites filled with sexual tension, but sex goes into a second level of importance. It's surpassed by words that make the movie about general relationships. In other words, we are captivated by the sexual tension but not as much as by what the characters say and discuss. We are blinded by their changes of moods in a piece that's also slower than the unstopping "Tape". Also, it's more difficult with two than with three. Buscemi's direction here places the acting as the main factor. He is 'that' actor who is always there but we don't always recall. Well, you won't forget about him after watching his work here: you won't forget his face, his temperament and his naturalness: he's a real person. And Sienna Miller is another story. I'm sure every review about this film contains the comparison I made above, but I personally believe that it takes an actress of great courage, personality and talent to take on a role like Katya's considering her situation. It's not superficial because Miller really has a reputation, but if you ask me I'll tell you her performance here is fantastic, full of ever changing sadness and joy, a lovable smile that will make you fall in love and a perfect American accent. If something is similar to "Tape" here, is the challenging photography and editing work. This is a remake, and the same crew who worked for the original film in Holland went to the States to work with Buscemi. Theo Van Gogh, the director of the original and inspiration for this project, developed a shooting system with three digital cameras at the same time. Cinematographer Thomas Kist took care of that and Kate Williams edited it. Great job. Considering "Interview" as the deceitful game it is, I'll ask you one question, and think about it because it may not be as easy as it sounds: Who is better at deceiving? An actress or a journalist?
Possibly the worst writing ever.
posted on 26 Jan 2009The first three minutes of this movie were quite funny and gave me false hope for the rest of the movie. The next 80-some minutes showcased the worst writing ever to make the screen. The senseless, round and round dialogue was painfully juvenile and downright boring. If you are forced to watch this movie, try to entertain yourself by counting how many times Katya tells Pierre to "Leave Now." Absolute trash. Bad acting. Worse writing. I wish that I had paid the babysitter to go see the movie for me instead of watching my kids. I tried to do the right thing and support an Indy movie, but I am jonesing for a real movie now!
A pleasant surprise
posted on 22 Jan 2009Steve Buscemi's "Interview" is the remake of a 2003 Dutch movie of the same name (which I haven't seen, therefore I can't compare this to the original). Buscemi did a fine job behind and in front of the cameras. It was great to see him playing an atypical, much more serious role than usual - Pierre, a political journalist who's set to interview a blonde diva, B-movie star Katya (Sienna Miller, who surprised me with a good performance after her bloody awful turn in "Factory Girl", easily one of the most cringe-inducing performances I've ever seen). They end up at her apartment for a long night of talking, drinking, and secrets revealed.Buscemi and Sienna have the right chemistry, plus his smart script and directing find the right pace for this kind of movie, so their long conversation never gets boring. The somewhat unexpected ending adds a cynical touch to the narrative that'll be loved by some, and sound a little too sour for others. "Interview" manages to be interesting enough for its 84 minutes, without being absolutely fascinating, but still compelling to visit. 8/10.
Steve is better than this.
posted on 16 Jan 2009I am a fan of Steve Buscemi. He is the real deal as an actor and as a director. He has done elite work as a performer and as an artist. Everyone fails somewhere, in some endeavor. Not a big deal. We all fail with some regularity in our lives -- at least, those of us who are human. So, this is a somewhat clumsy apology for the failure of "Interview." Here's the thing. It sucked. It sucked so badly I was knocked back on the couch, even if said collapse could be attributed to the four Budweiser American Ales (new brand) and three vodka Collins drinks I downed in order to be able to get through an hour and five minutes of the film. I will admit to being too weak to make my way through the rest. I had to turn it off, out of respect to Steve. I am not even close to being ready to concede that Buscemi has regressed as a director -- say, from "Trees Lounge" in 1996 to "Interview" more than a decade later. "Lounge" was the real deal, believable even if incredible in a few spots. What made it credible? I don't know for sure, but it stayed true to its turf. In "Trees Lounge," Buscemi's character gets to make out with Debi Mazar's hot and inebriated character. "No way!" you say? I say, "Way!" It's all about the setting, environment, and setup. I could very well buy that happening at Trees Lounge. Raise your hands, all who are chronic alcoholics. I see out there . . . not many hands, but a few. I have my hand raised. I am a long-time drunk and failure. I feel this gives me a modicum of "credential" in assessing films that leverage the motifs of drunkenness, addiction, and failure. -- But of course, that is delusional. Just because I am a f*&kup does not mean I have any ability to assess a work about f*&^ups. But forgive me. I digress. What makes "Interview" so bad is the contrived circumstances that are twisted in shape to enable the plot device of having a somewhat geeky journalist get in bed with a paparazzi wet dream diva. There are many bad devices that should have been edited before going full tilt with this one. Look, diva stars don't do B movie schlock. They don't do B horror movies. They do manufactured crap romance pieces. If they aren't pop superstars out of the gate or genuine teen stars that get great coverage with films like, I don't know, "Mean Girls" for instance, then they remain B movie actresses and never achieve celebrity. This movie got the sequence of events wrong in the "celebritization" of the object of the interview. Beyond that, the dialogue was so contrived and artificial as to be painful. I am not sure if the shortcoming should be attributed to the delivery of the actors or to the script, but the banter was not credible. The circumstances were not credible, and the movement toward increased intimacy of the two leads was not credible. Now, maybe it could have been credible. . . . But it wasn't credible as presented. It really failed, really badly. The babe lead would not have gotten into the male lead, given the setup. And even if we allow for the intervening set of circumstances that re-united them, . . . I'm sorry. This thing devolved into really bad meta-melodrama. Hey, if you don't agree, feel free to attribute it to my progressive loss of sensibilities due to advancing age, substance abuse, and life. If you want to see what Steve can do as a director, see "Trees Lounge." Okay. I am still a confirmed Buscemi fan and I love him. Just burn that copy of "Interview." Peace. Out.
Worth seeing - Not shocking overall, keeps you thinking, and with a proper ending
posted on 13 Dec 2008At the beginning, the movie is comforting; the cliché of two opposite worlds, and how all our prejudices are correct about these worlds: the girl is a spoiled celebrity and the guy is a smart journalist. You take sides immediately. You start to watch it with a smile on your face - inside, the pleasure to be justified about your prejudices (with the help of smart dialogs and gestures of course). Everything looks predictable, until you get the feeling that things (and people) might be different than they seem. Dialogs give you the intension that one of the characters might be lying, or both. The objects of your initial prejudices swap. In the end, you are surprised (but not shocked) to see that your initial judgments were wrong, and you shouldn't even be judging anyone at the first place, they are only human beings for god's sake, what do you expect?
Very Well Acted Mess
posted on 09 Dec 2008Either over edited or poorly written from the start, leaving a really pointless story that is an entertaining enough cat and mouse game to get your attention, but takes it nowhere.Both Buscemi and Miller do great jobs acting, and it would be fair to say Buscemi did a great job directing. But the story...Unless the point of the story is that actresses and journalists think more clearly and sharply as they drink, smoke, and snort more, there is no point. The only other possibility is to provide an extended product placement piece for odd cigarette lighters.So I'm guessing that there was an assumption made somewhere that should have been explicit and developed in the film or a key part got edited out post-production.
Did Steve Buscemi write this just so he could kiss Sienna Miller?
posted on 11 Nov 2008This movie is absolutely horrible, and it pains me to say that. I have been a fan of Steve Buscemi for years and watching this made me doubt him as an actor, director and definitely as a writer! The dialogue in this movie is just horrible and completely unnatural... I should go back through the DVD so I could quote something, but I really do not want to see any part of this movie ever again. Here is my attempt at recalling some of the dialogue:Steve: I am angry and bitter. Sienna: I should just kick you out of my apartment, but instead I am going to kiss you Steve: I am possibly gay, oh yeah, and my daughter is dead... I just thought you should know that just so I could make this situation more awkward. Sienna: I love you, Ihate you lets do some drugs.The end.Don't see this movie.
Contrived
posted on 08 Oct 2008This script is completely contrived. Sometimes the acting is good--Sienna Miller plays parts of her flighty-actress role well, and Buscemi is good as a washed-up journalist. But the script is over-written and the plot is often ridiculous. His "finding" revealing information on her computer is just off-the-charts stupid. The premise of the movie could be good, but it was so over-wrought it failed. The endless "personal revelations" scenes were simply TMI, and would never have happened in that kind of situation. The twist ending was mildly entertaining (hence 2 stars instead of 1), but it shows Miller's character to be much smarter and virtually psychic about Buscemi's next moves than she would ever have been. A waste of time and money.
It's good but...
posted on 08 Sep 2008It felt like it was half finished. I expect Buscemi was meant to be the villain of the piece but I ended up feeling far more sympathy for his character than I did for Sienna Miller's protagonist.Maybe that was intentional but it left me feeling less than satisfied with the ending and at a running time of under 80 minutes, it felt like there could have been a lot more to the story. While I can appreciate films which leave you to fill in the blanks as you see fit - such as the otherwise completely dissimilar "The World According to Garp" - this film felt like it could have benefited from another half hour of story. Perhaps redemption of either character or revenge for/reversal of the trick Miller's character pulls on Buscemi's.That said it was extremely well written and directed and the performances by both leads were pretty exceptional, hence a high score, but for the dissatisfaction I felt with the ending it would have been an 8 or even 9 out of 10 for me.
Interview Works Amazingly against all Odds
posted on 24 Aug 2009Much more interesting and better done than I expected. I'm usually not an advocate for remakes, but when they are done to honor the original film instead of to simply make money I'm all for it. This one does that and more and is the best remake since The Departed. It works for a long list of reason's, most particularly because of the performances. Buscemi is fantastic as a slime ball and always has been. This is one of his better performances of the last couple of years. He relishes in this character, and it shows. He is funny, and disturbing at the same time. Sienna Miller has been becoming a better and better actress over the last year or so. She deserved an Oscar nomination for her performance in the underrated Factory Girl last year, and deserves another one for Interview. She plays a roll similar to herself, or at least her image. Many people say this is easier, but it actually isn't. It is extremely difficult and very emotionally draining. It is rare to find a performance like this that works so well. She is stunning, and deserves better work. The style of the film is interesting. This is thanks to Buscemi's odd, and very experimental direction. Against the odds it works, and elevates the film above just strong acting. Much of the style can also be attributed to the screenplay. The dialogue and characters are expertly drawn. They also are odd, and occasionally stilted, but that's part of why they work so well. It's been a long time since such a stilted and mediocre script worked so perfectly. Even when I say all this though I must say I did have some problems. While I was consistently entertained the "message", if you will, never quite came across. It is a strong one, and should have been paid more attention too. The director of the original film was a strong advocate for free speech, and stood for many wonderful things. He was murdered in 2004 tragically for offending someone with something he said and believed. This film is obviously channeling his beliefs and I just wish it had either forgotten them, or drawn them a little better. However it still works perfectly as an entertainment, which is after all the point of movies.