Interview with a vampire
 

I watched the movie last night...
I was not pleased.....

Good goth..Well, I personally am a big fan. Both of the film and the book. It was an awesome film to me, just as I'd invisioned. The only con were the actors playing the roles :p

Oh but dearest Bleed, why did it not please you? I can see how someone can be disappointed, yet I still am curious in this case.
Goth Forever
Goth Forever
Goth Forever

I liked the film, although I hated how they changed parts of it. And kudos to whoever decided to put Brad Pitt in it ...NOT!!!! ...Ugh!

For one brad and tom are not beautiful enough to play lestat and louis, antonio banderas was okay....
They cut out all the parts where Louis and Claudia were in europe searching for their kind.... and the zomby vamp thingy.....

I didnt like how they did the ending.. It did not do the book justice.. Although the girl who played Claudia pleased me... she was good.

I definitely agree with what you said about Claudia. Although, I thought Lestat was good.

Brad Pitt wants shooting.

I think Lestat was one of Tom Cruise's few good roles. I, like Vyvian, am a big fan of both the movie and book.

Regretably, I actually saw the film before I read the book, yet, I'm also a fan of both.

Yep that was really a rather major part of the book showing the more monstorous aspect of vampire society.

Kristen Dunst's best line in it I think was "can I have some more" she looked soo sweet, yet evil at the same time exactly how you envisioned her in the book.

I thought the movie was done very well. The only thing that annoyed me about it was Antonio Banderas playing Armand. While not as bad as Stuart Townsend playing Lestat in Queen of the Damned (and don't even get me started on that movie), it was still annoying nonetheless.

I fucking love Interview. One of my favorite movies.

I do love this film.

They gave Armand black hair though -_-, it's meant to be auburn (I think). Isn't he meant to be really young aswell!? Oh well, I can overlook that. as beneath the shadows said, it's not as bad as Stuart Townsend playing Lestat.

I think Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise did a good job in this film, i'm not going to knock them.

I say they should have chosen different actors. All the vampires in the movie are supposed to be much younger. Not to mention more beautiful. Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise, Antonio Banderas?! Come on.

The only one I liked was Kirsten Dunst.

I really think the actors were just fine for the roles.

What I don't quite understand is why they made all the hair color wrong. Is is so hard to give Armand red hair? Actually, Brad Pitt probably would have made a better Lestat.

The zombie vampire part I never quite understood. I can't remember the point of it in the book.

I don't see it

I honestly couldn't think of anyone else that was an actor at the time that could have done it.

Wow, that would be kind of a cool thread. If Interview was to be remade, who would be cast as who?

Keep them the same. Seriously.
Even the changes that were made. Keep them.

I preferred the movie to the book. To be fair, though, I didn't finish the book.
But to be fair to that, the book was too tedious to finish. It all happened so slow, and for a 'dark' book, there was not much that would surprise you or scare you.
Now, the movie! The movie is incredible. It moves in just the right pace, and it's never boring.
Also, it looks all the much better if you put her fugly sister Queen of the Damned nect to her.

I fully agree with this quote. No matter how many things were different than the book in Interview, nothing can prepare you for the borderline Lovecraftian horror that is Queen of the Damned.

First off I don't think Godslayer was complementing queen of the damned. Second of all I really wouldn't say that Queen of the damned is a horror, if anything it is a bit of a thriller with romance and seduction followed by a huge decision. Sure the possibility of most of the male population being whiped out and the remainder kept merely for the purpose of sexual reproduction could be considered scary by some. But vampires bursting into flames all of a sudden makes it more of a thriller, where you are racing against the clock trying to get all the ingredients together to counter this threat to men and the current way of life.

I guess that came across differently than I meant it. I meant that the movie in its self is horrible, not that the content is. I do agree though, that it was more of a thriller than horror.

I loved both movies as they were, if they were to make the movies at the exact detail of the book, then they should have made an extended version for DVD release.

As I recall, Anne Rice did say that she would have prefered the movies be made better with effort, but it seems that the directors followed their own perspective and not hers.

I think despite the shock of the chosen actors, it turned out perfect. The director of Interview did a phenomenal job of it. It was slightly frightening with highly dramatic scenes. For being an adaptation from the book it was excellent. It was based on the book, stayed as true as a two hour movie could, but the changes that were made were better for the silver screen.

That's exactly what I think.

Leave the film alone, there are far too many remakes as it is.

The movie story line itself was not bad. The problem with the movie was the actors. Tom Cruise... What the hell were those people smoking. Brad Pitt... thats even worse.

This isn't just to firewizardvamp, this is to everyone bashing Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt.

The only reason you guys don't like them is because they're popular actors who do films you don't like.
So what?
They're both extremely talented actors.

If you can find a scene in the movie that you had a problem with, and explain it, then you won't look like an ass.