Interview with the Vampire

movie      fiction Interview with the Vampire Author: Anne Rice Director: Neil Jordan Producer: Geffin Pictures Year: 1994 Country: USA 122 minutes

Warnings   Violence:

Description:
This big-budget film traces the centuries-long relationship between the regal vampire Lestat and his immortal victim, Louis, through a contemporary interview between Louis and a San Francisco journalist.

Saw it? Want others to know what you thought of it, then rate this movie

Want to buy it?

User Ratings

The movie does a pretty good job of following the book it was based on, but the producers really toned down the homoerotic content on the big screen. Unfortunate, but understandable in that they wanted to make it as audience friendly as possible. After all this was pre-Ellen, pre-Will & Grace, 1994. On a personal note, I think all us gay vamps spent way too much time drooling over Cruise and Pitt and all but ignored Antonio Bandaras as Armand. He exudes a dark sexual magnetism that gets my blood flowing every time I see him. A very underrated performance.

I believe it is very different from the book, obviously. But still in its way it has a mystery about it. The movie is one of my very favorites and I recommend it to any of the Anne Rice readers. Like I said before, it's very different from the book, but also very excellent as a movie.

This has to be one of my favorite vampire movies. Although, the queer content could be debated. There are only subtle homoerotic undertones shown by the concept that Lestat needs Louie, not that he is in love or aroused by him. This did not detract from the movie itself by any means. A definite addition to any true vampire fan's collection.

This movie is great! And Lestat and Louie, if you didn't know any better, could of come off as lovers. .. Great movie!

Well let's see... it's a good movie, but some parts of it the producer's didn't research well, which is why I gave it a B+. There is no queer content that I could see except for Armand and Lestat both really liking Louis, so it also got a C-.

I found the movie to very interesting and in some instances highly erotic in it's silence. I only hope that when they decide to make another movie from her books that it will include more queer horror.

On the general rating 'Interview With The Vampire' was a good movie but there was very little in it about same-sex contacts.

This film could have been better. There are some intriguing scenes between Lestat and Louis, but they are few and far in between. If you have no intention of seeing this movie at all, then just rent it to see an almost-kiss between Brad Pitt and Antonio Banderas.

I'm sorry, but it sucked. I'm not that big on the actors, and the acting job could have been better. I think they should have picked different people. And I do believe they strayed pretty far from the orriginal book. Go figure.

I thought some of the parts in this movie were very hot.

Disappointing because it could have been so much better. Cruise was wrong as Lestat and Banderas was wrong as Armand. Pitt was good as the brooding, depressed Louis and Dunst was terrific as Claudia - even though her character was older than she was in the book.

This film is a timeless masterpiece and Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt and Kirsten Dunst made fantastic vampires.

Myself, I never considered Anne Rice's books to be 'homoerotic'. I first began reading them when I first began to be bisexual (pansexual, really), at the age of eleven. I saw them as erotic, but I did not differentiate between homo- or hetero- erotic. Being female myself, I enjoyed Anne's males-- perhaps they are, in part, manifestations of the female psyche-- and perhaps that is why I can't see them as straight or gay (with the exception of their orientation as mortals, when mentioned-- David is homosexual; Lestat is bisexual)

The movie leaves out a lot of the homosexual context of the book, naturally. However, to those of us who know the book, there are subtle suggestions which imply much more than they do to those seeing the movie alone.

We never hear Louis remark, in the film, that the experience of having his blood consumed by Lestat is similar to sexual ecstacy. Of course, he would likely feel this if he were a woman, or if Lestat were a woman...but this is irrelevant, as the average movie-goer would have trouble grasping the concept of vampires who, lacking the ability or desire to have human intercourse, can love and enjoy anyone beautiful and interesting, regardless of sex.

However, when Lestat is drinking Louis' blood, they are lying on the ground with their arms around one another. Although Louis is startled and afraid, his facial expression would lead us to believe that the experience is very pleasurable. Taken out of context, the image looks very much like sexual fore-play.

Although the two of them are very hostile to one another, there is definitely sexual tension. They often stand close together, looking at one another, and Lestat is openly flirtatious. He teases Louis, he touches him, he stares at him longingly, and he is looking directly in his eyes when he tells Claudia she is 'mine and Louis' daughter now'.

Louis is very attracted to Armand, and Claudia is afraid he will 'leave her' for Armand. Louis whispers to Armand from only a small space from his mouth, and for a while, they appear that they will kiss. Armand seems to think they will, and seems disappointed when Louis releases him.

Towards the end, in Lestat's crumbling house, he begs Louis to return to him, because he is lonely. Yet, even in the movie, it appears more as if he is pleading with a former lover to have him back-- after all, if he were merely lonely, why would he seek out Louis specifically, considering that Louis claims they had hated each other? Lestat could likely find another vampire, or even create a fledgling-- but he only wants Louis.

Comforting him, Louis takes his hand, and they hold one another with both hands and look each other in the eyes. Lestat clings to Louis' arm when Louis withdraws to leave.

All in all, it did leave one wondering, and slightly disappointed (although you must remember, the book on which it was based was the LEAST sexual of the series!)-- but as a stand-alone film, it's highly enjoyable, and beautiful-- and as Anne Rice herself said, we don't see many movies featuring two very beautiful men. If nothing else, it's nice to be able to watch them, on their own.

I thought this was an absoloutly brilliant movie, and was relatively good about sticking to the plot (I actually prefer the movie's ending to the book's) I don't know why people say it isn't homoerotic; this halloween I watched it with a girl who had never seen the movie/read the book and even she saw how definite the relationships between male characters are (just try Tom Cruise's pants in the corner after his character made the vampire Louis. He obviously enjoyed himself *very* much.)

The queerness is assumed, not stated outright. I mean, Lestat is ... bi, apparently, but I don't believe the whole Louis/Armand theory.

the best part of the movie was in the garden with the young aristocrat-the better part of the movie was during the vampire play and the following scenes.

Perhaps if they hadn't had such a high profile lead as Cruise, the gay content could have been a bgit more pronounced. As it was, Cruise was a bit campy, and everyone should see the film - even though Kirsten Dunst as Claudia, really grated on my nerves. Brad Pitt was apropriately cool,and Christian Slater was a bit over-eager to have Lestat turn him. One can only imagine what River Phoenix would have brought to the role! Neil Jordan directed flawlessly.

© QueerHorror.com 1999-2006. Any suggestions, questions or comments, please e-mail us