Feeding The Addiction: The Movie

Well, bloglings. I've watched it. The movie I've been anticipating for weeks now. The movie that I've begged to be allowed to see. The movie whose preview I've watched at least ten times on You Tube. Yes. I'm talking about Interview With The Vampire.

Actually, it's been a few weeks since I've watched it. I know what you're thinking. 'What's taken you so long to blog about it, then? Huh, Sam? Don't you know you're being an irresponsible blogger? Leaving your readers to cope with their suspense?' or something along those lines.

I've been thinking about how to compose this post for a while. On some levels, I completely adored this movie. It's got an intriguing story line, beautifully created and portrayed characters, some pretty hilarious parts and just the right amount of horror. But in comparison to the novel? Don't start. I was a good girl. I didn't do ANY comparing during the movie.

It took a lot of contemplation. I've decided to tackle the review by breaking it up into parts. I've put a lot of thought into this post (can't you tell I take my movies seriously?). So, without farther a due, here it is:

Screen Play:

It's interesting how the screen play was written by Anne Rice, the author of the beloved novel, herself. I noticed that a lot of the best lines from the book were included. I appreciated that. The screen play did a great job of having us get to know the characters in only two hours.

The ending of the movie was very different from the ending of the book. I loved it! It did everything a great movie ending should do: it shocked, it gave a hint of what direction the characters lives would be heading in (with or without a continuing film) and it left a great after taste kind of feeling in your mind.

Believe it or not, I actually liked it better than the ending in the book. I think it's awesome that Ms. Rice changed the ending around herself, so you know that it was genuine to her characters and it was what she would want for them. More power to you.

Characters and How they were Portrayed:

Louis (pronounced the French way):

As our narrator, the vampire protagonist's face must portray the pain and confusion he feels once transformed. He's been described as a 'vampire with a mortals passion' and or, to put it simply, a whiner. I think Brad Pitt did a pretty good job of portraying him. You can really read the agony on his face as he watches mortals die at his hand and Claudia turning cruel.

Although, I think he could have done a better job portraying his and Claudia's relationship. There is something missing here. I understand that it must have been difficult to portray their relationship in visual format. Somethings just can't be brought over to the big screen. Somethings are so intimate, fragile and poetic that they just can't be translated.

Lestat:

Wow.

I've heard there has been much debate whether Tom Cruise would be suitable to play Lestat but, to put it frankly, I think he was just awesome.

He captured every aspect (from the lovable to the hate able) perfectly. From his manic laugh to his arrogant self, it was right on target. He manged to be comical and ignorant at the same time. Exactly how I imagined him. It was just like he jumped off the page.

I loved how all of his arguments with Claudia take place at the piano. You could really see his anger just by watching how hard he slammed down on the keys.

There's really not much else to say here. No words to describe this character expect, that he's Lestat. The brat prince.

Highest of compliments.

Claudia:

Hmmmm.

I understand how hard it must of been to cast a child actor to play Claudia. I mean, she's a child vampire. Over time she develops a woman's mind but she's forever trapped in a little girl's body. How do you get a child actor to portray the agony that Claudia feels, the agony that you can see in her eyes?

In the movie they used Claudia's character to act as comic relief. She craves blood as a mortal child might whine and crave for candy. I have to admit, the Claudia scenes are funny. But a major theme of the novel was the horrid truth of what it means to be immortal and how Louis and Claudia suffer from it.

But, if I was being fair (what a strain) I would say that Claudia was played with quite an impressive vengeance and feeling. But only if I was being fair.

Comparison To The Book:

With all that said, I think that the book was done justice. The character were (more or less) brought to life. The screenplay and ending were excellent.

Of course, many qualities of the book did not survive the process to the big screen. The poetic prose and lengthly descriptions are lost. So is the general tone of heartbreaking agony that the book so beautifully possessed.

But, as movie adaptations go, this was pretty well done. I love them both dearly (Just ask my mom. I'm constantly sprouting lines from the movie with no warning) but in entirely different ways and for entirely different reasons.

Bravo.