Conference bookie::movies

  Did Cruise sign to play Louis, or Lestat? Both are pretty big parts.

  I agree, great book. Now let's see if they can do a great movie.

  George

    
    I am *so* disappointed that they've picked Cruise to star in this
    movie!!  The book is great and has the potential to be made into
    a really good movie.  Initially I had heard that Daniel Day Louis
    was going to play the lead, and that sounded great to me....but now 
    *this*!  I like Cruise but he just isn't right for either Louis or 
    Lestat.  Will have to check today's paper again for the details.
    
    Why do they *do* things like this?!?
    
    Carole

    ET said he signed to play Lestat.... but they have been wrong when
    there was more than one lead before!
    
    ET said they hadn't started to film yet... I think... that part is
    foggy!
    
    M-L

    
    I thought they weren't gonna do this because there were things in it
    they thought people would be up in arms about (the Louis-Lestat
    relationship: are they gay or what?  the turning a little child into a
    vampire, etcetera, etcetera).
    
    Hmm.  Maybe the success of The Crying Game had something to do with it.
    
    DFW

    Daniel Day-Lewis is about a million times better actor than Tom Cruise. 
    I don't think Cruise has the range for either role, and I haven't even
    read the book!!  (I've had people tell me about it,tho.)
    
    Lorna
    

    Didn't Anne Rice once say that she'd like to see Rutger Hauer as
    Lestat?
    

    
    Lorna,
    
    Do check out the book, it's great!   Then you'll really know why
    Cruise should not play either role.
    
    RE: Rutger Hauer.....maybe a *young* Rutger would have been good,
    but he is a bit too old for the role now.
    
    Carole

    re .7, well, we were supposed to read it for the book discussion group
    that I go to, a year or so ago, but I just couldn't get into it.  I
    started it, but it just didn't grab me.  However, I went to the book
    group and listened to the discussion of those who did read it.  And, my
    daughter read it this past year and absolutely fell in love with it,
    and she told me about it.  
    
    Lorna
    

    The Vampire Chronicles are possibly the most addictive books I have
    ever read, behind The Lord Of The Rings of course.  The third book was
    the weakest of the bunch, but Interview and Lestat are positively
    exquisite.   The way the books are written, you are swept fully into
    the world of these immensely powerful beings and carried along as they
    fight with their own moral scruples and psychic pains.  Cruise cannot
    play Louis effectively, he cannot muster the emotional intensity
    necessary for the role, he has no trouble with agressive emotions, but
    Louis is not a character of aggressive emotions, not primarily.  he is
    tormented, yes, he is also passionate, but he is a cultured New Orleans
    planter/gentleman, he is quiet spoken.   The person who plays Louis
    must be able to carry off a character who is at once detached from his
    own existence, yet supremely aware of what is happening around him and
    in his own life.   Judging from Cruise previous work,  Top Gun, Born on
    the Fourth of July, Far and Away, (Days of Thunder?), etc.  I do not
    believe he can carry it off.   he also does not fit the character
    physically.  I never pictured Louis as a short, atheletically built
    man, but a slender, taller man.
    
    As for Lestat, he needs to be played by someone with stronger skills
    than Rutger Hauer.  I cannot think of someone capable right now.   John
    Malkovich could handle it, he has the range, so does James Woods, but
    he is too ugly.  Daniel Day Lewis is perfect for Louis, but not Lestat. 
    Lestat must be played with great self-confidence and a touch of
    swagger, the character possessed these traits even before
    transformation, Kenneth Brannagh could do it as well, but I don't think
    then would consider him.
    
    Tom Cruise will have to stretch hard to pull it off.
    
    D. D. Lewis  and Malcovich would be my vote.
    
    Andrew
    

  Malkovich may be a bit too old but other than that I agree pretty much with
note -1. That's a very good analysis of the characters.

  Christon Slater comes to mind for Lastat.

  Cruise could play Armond without too much trouble.

  George

Cruise is wrong wrong wrong!  Physical type is wrong
(for both parts) and what he's shown in the acting
style department is wrong.  Impossible!  Where 
was this casting director's head?

Much as I love Branagh's work, he too is wrong wrong
wrong for either part.  Lestat must be tall, Teutonic,
powerful.  Frankly, Daniel Day Lewis could do either
part (blond for Lestat).

I hope this is a terrible rumor.

dcl

    I had heard about a month ago that Lestat would be played by...
    
    ...oh, what's his name...the younger brother from "A River Runs Through
    
    It".
    
    Did anyone else hear the same?
    
    At least he's blonde.
    
    mb

    Brad Pitt was the younger brother in "A River Runs Though It".
    
    Jodi-
    

  How about Sharon Stone in a black wig for Akasha?

  George

    Why do they do these things?
    They do them for money!!
    
    Studios want to make money;
    they make money by using stars,
    notice I did not use the word
    actor, like Cruise....especially
    American studios.
    
    Many American studio heads don't
    give the public credit for liking
    movies on their merit; they think
    that they have to populate them with
    pretty girls and boys to play the
    parts.
    
    Do you really think that a U.S. studio
    would have made "The Crying Game"
    of "Kiss of the Spider Woman" or 
    other films of that ilk?
    
    I read somewhere recently that the
    studio didn't hype "Fried Green Tomatoes" a
    few years ago because they were certain that
    it wouldn't be a hit.  They were wrong.
    
    I have tried reading the vampire books
    and also have had trouble getting into
    them.

    
    
    Rutger was already a vampire in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer".Doubtful
    that he would do it again.
    
    Another vampire movie? 
    
    Dave
    

    Jeez, would anyone who was a vampire in Buffy do it AGAIN??????? :)
    
    Renee

    
    >Rutger was already a vampire in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer".Doubtful
    >that he would do it again.
    
    Maybe he's afraid of being "bite casted" ? :^[
    
    Jodi-
    

    >Maybe he's afraid of being "bite casted" ? :^[
    
    OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!  :-)
    
    (Actually, that's the best pun I've seen in a long time.)
    
    -- Mike

    I don't see Lestat as beeing tall and Teutonic, he was French, and not
    from that far out in the provinces.  True, he was a tough nut, but I
    never pictured him as being hugely powerful in build, just taut, wiry,
    and mentally indominable.  I picture him as being a little bit over
    average height, medium build, handsome features, sharply defined, but
    not so fine as to be effite.  Louis on the other hand, I see as being a
    little disolute in the beginning.  The mental indominability and
    ability to play detachment and coolness, as well as high passion, is
    why I place Malkovich as Lestat.  The make-up job necessary to smooth
    and porcelinize his features would de-age Malkovich sufficiently.  I
    have heard, however, that Brad Pit has been signed for Lestat, there is
    no confirmation as of yet on any of these rumours.
    
    As the movie will be based upon Interview... the character of Armand
    should not show up at all, but if he did, Cruise would be dead wrong. 
    Armand would fit Christian Slater, or even Matthew Broderick.  Armand
    was, after all, made from a very young man, borderline boy.  Broderick
    has a perpetually young face and has shown the ability to play serious
    roles with skill (Glory).  
    
    At one time, Sting was lobbying very hard for the role of Lestat, back
    in the mid-eighties, (that is how long this project has been in the
    works).  Although I like Sting, his acting skills are insufficient.
    
    Branagh could do Lestat, he is not quite physically right, but his
    acting ability is second to none and would hide any ills.  
    
    Rutger Hauer is too old and too large for Lestatm, but his facial
    features would be good.
    
    Well, nothing we say here is going to make any difference, they will do
    what they will do.   We will all watch the movie and groan if it is
    done wrong, and cheer if it is done well.  Back into the shadows,
    friends of the night, time alone will tell this tale, we are here but
    to observe, unheard, unseen, in the depths of the night, as ever we
    have been.
    
    Andrew

    Quick! If only it's not too late! Don't put your preferred casting
    choices _here_; write them to the producers of the movie! There may
    still be time to prevent this horrible mis-casting!!!
    
    (Knee-jerk cross-reference: See the KOLFAX::BOOKS conference,
    especially topics 138 and 511, for discussion of Anne Rice's vampire
    books.)
    
    -b

  Armond is in the 1st book.

Story Stuff SPOILER




  Remember, In the 1st book after dumping Lestat in the swamp, Louis and the
little girl take off to find other Vampires in Europe. They start in eastern
Europe but end up in Paris where the actors sniff them out. 

  Louis meets Armond who is the head of the troupe. In fact it's Armond who
rescues Louis after he is walled up by the other actors. 

  Armond then follows Louis back to the U.S. and they split up. Armond wants
Louis to stick around and give his life meaning because he is coming to the
300 year point when life starts to get meaningless but Louis decides to go
his own way and heads west to San Francisco.

  George

    Hey, how about Jimmy Smits as Lestat??  I'll send it off to the
    producers, if you think he would fit the bill!!!!

    
    RE: .9 and .20
    
    Good insights!  :^)
    
    Great books, aren't they?
    
    Carole

    Jimmy Smits?????, not even close, Jimmy Smits doesn't have, even
    remotely, the subtlety necessary to play Lestat,  Just My Opinion.
    
    Andrew
    

  Keep in mind that there are two questions here.

  1). Who would be the best person to play Louis or Lastat.

  2). Who does the studio think will make them the most money playing Louis or
      Lastat. 

  I'll bet anything that most people who read the book are thinking of the 1st
question when they reply and I'll bet anything that most Hollywood producers
would agree that you are correct. However, casting will be done with respect
to the second question.

  George

    I read in the newspaper last night that Tom Cruise was definitely cast
    as Lestat (sp?) and Brad Pitt was definitely cast as Louis.  

  Who's Brad Pitt?

  George

    Brad Pitt played the younger brother in "A River Runs Through It."
    
    He displays a striking resemblance to a younger Robert Redford.
    
    Jodi-

    re .29, he also played the guy who did it with Thelma, in Thelma &
    Louise, and then stole her money.  He's also in Johnny Suede, which is
    a real hoot.  He's a good actor, and very cute, too.
    
    Lorna
    

    Just to rathole this a little. I thought Julian Sands would have made
    a good Louis.
    
    For those who don't know, he was George in "Room with a View" and the 
    warlock in the movie of the same name.
    
    
    Marilyn

    That should be "bat-hole," surely... 
    
    Actually, Sands might have made a good Lestat, too; he can do the
    pale-and-wan bit, and then turn on some savage energy. But word seems
    to be that Mr. Cruise is in, so we shall see what we shall see.
    
    -b

    
    
    
    Got this from the internet.
    
        -=-=-R~C~W-=-=-
    
    
	LOS ANGELES (UPI) -- Geffen Pictures said Friday that Tom Cruise,
among the most ``bankable'' stars in Hollwyood, has agreed to perform
the lead role in ``Interview With the Vampire.''
	The film, scheduled to begin production Oct. 18, in New Orleans and
London, will also star Brad Pitt, Antonio Banderas, Stephen Rea and
River Phoenix. Warner Bros. will distribute the film worldwide.
	``Interview,'' based on the best-selling novel of the same name by
Anne Rice and part of her series of Vampire Chronicles, is being
directed by Neil Jordanand produced by Stephen Woolley and David Geffen.
	The screenplay is by Jordan, who won the best screenplay Academy
Award this year for ``The Crying Game,'' and Rice.
	Cruise worked for Geffen in the 1983 hit ``Risky Business,'' which
elevated Cruise into a star. He has since been in ``Top Gun,'' ``The
Color of Money,'' ``Days of Thunder,'' ``Rain Main,'' ``Far and Away,''
``A Few Good Men'' and ``The Firm'' and is currently working on the
movie ``Legends of the Fall.''
	The announcement gave no details about Cruise's fee, but he is one of
a handful of A-list stars -- Arnold Schwarzenegger, Mel Gibson and Eddie
Murphy are the others -- able to pull in $10 million-plus for doing a
single movie.
	There are about 50 stars currently able to command a fee of $2
million or more per film, but Cruise's films have been among the most
consistently profitable. Even ``Far and Away,'' which received a massive
panning from critics, topped $50 million in domestic ticket sales.
	Four Cruise films -- ``Top Gun,'' ``Rain Man,'' ``A Few Good Men'' and
``The Firm'' -- topped $100 million each in domestic grosses.

    I had forgotten about Sands, he would make goof Lestat material as long
    as he had good direction, he certainly is not on a par with John
    Malkovich as far as ability goes, but he is good enough to take
    direction well.  Sands actually fits my impression of lestat fairly
    well.  Now River Pheonix is an interesting notion,  who will he be
    playing, perhaps the reporter? or maybe Armand.  I think Pheonix and
    the make-up folks could manage that eternally young, but also ancient
    look that Armand so frequently displayed.
    
    I still cannot see Cruise in any of the roles, except perhaps the
    reporter, Brad Pitt does not strike me to strongly either.
    
    Andrew
    

    
    "The lead role" it says.  Who would you consider the lead?  Louis? 
    Lestat?
    
    DFW

RE          <<< Note 259.35 by RNDHSE::WALL "Show me, don't tell me" >>>
    
>    "The lead role" it says.  Who would you consider the lead?  Louis? 
>    Lestat?
    
  The lead role in the book is Louis but I'll bet that you will hardly
recognize the story line once it gets to the big screen and that Cruise as
Lestat will be the lead role. 

  Also they will probably have to do some modifications to the Claudia
character. If they tell that the way it was in the book they will get a fair
amount of P.C. bashing. In Hollywood if you are going to have horrific things
happening involving kids you have to draw very clear lines between good and
evil. The morality around Claudia is very vague in the book which will get some
people very upset.

  If they were doing the real story, Jodie Foster would have made a really good
Claudia when she was 11. In fact, I think she practically played Claudia in
Taxi Driver. 

  George

My guess would be

	Louis		Cruise
	Lestat		Pitt
	Armand		Banderas
	reporter	Phoenix
	???		Rea
	Claudia		???

I think the casting is disappointing, except for 
Antonio Banderas.

From the ad in Variety announcing that principal photography starts October 18:

Tom Cruise.........Lestat
Brad Pitt..........Louis
Antonio Banderas...Armand
Stephen Rea........Santiago
River Phoenix......The Interviewer

Music by George Fenton; D.P. Phillippe Rousselot; Screenplay Neil
Jordan and Anne Rice; prod. des. Dante Ferretti; costumes Sandy Powell;
SFX Stan Winston; Casting Juliet Taylor and Susie Figgis; co-prod.
Redmond Morris; prod. Stephen Woolley and David Geffen; directed by
Neil Jordan.  Distributed by Warner Bros.

And the title given there is Interview With *the* Vampire (emphasis mine).

    As I've never heard about the related book before (must I be ashamed
    for ? ;-) ), could anyone give a short synopsis ?
    thanks.
    Andrea 

    The plot of the book is very simple it is the tale that make the book
    good. A reported gets a call from a guy at a motel about a big story.
    The report shows up and find out the guy is a vampire and he wants to
    tell the reporter his life story. The guy tells how he was made a
    vampire and all about his life covering some 300 years. The book is
    great. Ann Rice is writing the screen play so there is some hope the 
    story would be lost.
                                 Jeff Peters

RE      <<< Note 259.39 by 49438::BARTAK "Andrea Bartak, Vienna, Austria" >>>

>    As I've never heard about the related book before (must I be ashamed
>    for ? ;-) ), could anyone give a short synopsis ?
>    thanks.
>    Andrea 

A slightly longer synopsis follows SPOILER WARNING. The ending will not be
revealed. 



  Interview With the Vampire is a book by Ann Rice about the "life" of a
Vampire named Louis. The entire story is narrated by Louis as he tells his
story to a young reporter in modern day San Francisco. Most of the story
consists of Louis' early years as a Vampire which took place in New Orleans and
Paris c. 1790. 

  In the interview, Louis tells how he was turned into a vampire by another
vampire named Lestat and how he, Lestat, and a third vampire Claudia (a little
girl) "lived" together in New Orleans. Part of the story also takes place in
Paris where Louis meets Armond, Santiago, and others. 

  This is the 1st in a series of vampire books by Ann Rice now numbering four,
Interview with the Vampire, The Vampire Lestat, Queen of the Dammed, and Tale
of the Body Snatcher. What sets them apart from other vampire stories is that
they are told from the view of the vampires, rather than being told from the
view of people dealing with vampires as monsters. 

  Also, Ann Rice, who writes about all sorts of folk lore "monsters", keeps the
supernatural to a minimum. There is just enough supernatural to make the
vampires work. For example, like vampires of other authors they feed on blood,
have great strength, parish if exposed to the sun, and can live forever if they
are careful, but they don't have many of the other powers like changing into
bats or wolves, slipping through keyholes on beams of light, etc. 

  Where her stories put less emphasis on the supernatural, they put more
emphasis on the interpersonal reactions between vampires and the problems they
face trying to live through days, months, years, decades, centuries, and later
in the series, millennia. 

  Although the 1st book can be dry at times, the series in general is very well
written and the excitement picks up as it goes along. Most people find the book
The Vampire Lestat to be their favorite although I liked the Queen of the
Dammed the best. 

  George 

	Hi All,

		While listening to the radio this morning (WBCN in Boston)
        Charles mentioned the there is a problem between Tom Cruse (sp?) and
        Anne Rice on the Lestat charector.

		It seems that when Tom signed on to do the role he had put 
	into his contract that the homosexual parts of Lestat would be removed.

		I've never read the books but have listened to the audio tapes
	of 2 or 3 of the books and I don't see how the story can be told without
        the homosexual undertones.

		FWIW I didn't like any of the stories I listened to.
	Too slow reminded me of a vampire soap opera.




							Steve Bo.

If you didn't like the stories in their abridged versions
on tape, it may be the abridgement, not the book that's
at fault.  I have found that many books on tape,
when abridged (normally by some nameless editor, not 
the author) lose any resemblance to the original.  Best
example offhand are the books of Elizabeth George.

On the other hand, if you aren't drawn in by the first
50 pages or so of _Lestat_ or _Interview_, it probably 
IS the book that doesn't excite you.  How they do on
the screen will be something else again.  

If Cruise doesn't want to play the r�le as originally 
written, then by all means, replace him, please.  Don't
give in, Anne!

RE                      <<< Note 259.42 by 17576::BOTELHO >>>

  It might be a good thing to keep all discussion of the story line behind
spoiler warnings.

  Story Line SPOILER, no ending spoilers



  There were no homosexual parts. Ann Rice's vampires had no sexuality at all.
That was one part that died along with their mortal flesh and was not animated
by the power that drove them. 

  For the life of me I can't imagine what Cruise is complaining about.

  George

    re. 40,41,
    
    thanks a lot !
    
    Andrea

    
    Tom Cruise probably doesn't want to be sucking another guy's neck, or
    having his sucked by another guy.
    
    DFW

    Then they should offer the role to Matthew Broderick.  He's more
    appealing, a better actor, and has already done male love scenes (in
    Torch Song Trilogy).
    
    I'm dissapointed in Tom Cruise, if it's true.  His attitude is
    certainly not what I'd call open-minded.
    
    Lorna
    

  I'm still having a difficult time trying to imagine what this is all about. 

  If they were going to change the book it seems that he wouldn't have to argue
with Rice about leaving that stuff out. Why would she want to add it to the
movie? It contradicts the basic mechanics of the way her vampires work.

  Maybe the earlier note is right and he's squeamish about chomping necks,
  George

    re .48, well, I haven't read the book, but a couple of people have told
    me a little about it, and I was under the impression that, although
    they didn't have sex, that Lestat was in love with Lewis.  If that's
    the case, then, maybe Cruise just doesn't like the idea of playing a
    character who is in love with another man.
    
    Lorna
    

  As I remember, their relationship was no stronger than the relationship that
existed between his character and the Rain Man. That was a very strong bond
as well and I don't remember him complaining about it.

  Could be just the press trying to create some excitement.

  George

    re .50, or maybe the women in my book discussion group?  We read this
    book for discussion one month (well, I didn't because I couldn't get
    into it, but I went to the group discussion), and I seem to remember
    some of the women saying that Lestat was obsessively in love with
    Louis, and that Louis was in love with Armand.  Must be a matter of
    individual interpretation.
    
    Lorna
    

    Does anyone in the area have a copy of this book for me to borrow?
    
    Thanks,
    Joyce
    Worcester/Maynard area

.52>    Does anyone in the area have a copy of this book for me to borrow?
    
    The Maynard town library has two - paperback, and a hardcover (on the
    best-seller shelf).
    
    Or you can order it by inter-library loan in your home town, if you
    live somewhere else.
    
    I just read The Witching Hour by Anne Rice, and I thought it was
    very, very well written.  And, uh, more disturbing at points than
    I expected.  Her other vamipire books seem to go in a series, and
    I think that Interview is first.  I expect to read them all over time.
    
    -Steve

I read an article in our papaer today that Anne Rice is very upset with the
casting of both Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt and is calling for Cruise to give up
the part. 

Cruise's agent responded with that everybody thought Cruise was miscast in 4th
of July and he ended up getting an Oscar nomination for the role.


John

  It's always difficult for an artist like Anne Rice when Hollywood decides to
turn their masterpiece into a blockbuster. The conflict between what the artist
wants to see and the hundreds of millions of dollars necessary from the box
office for the movie to be considered a success are bound to cause friction. 

  The one consolation that Rice will have is that no matter how miserable a
time she is given by the producers, she will no doubt be crying all the way to
the bank with a small fortune. 

  George 

    There are very, very definite erotic overtones to Rice's vampires, the
    act of feeding for them, is profoundly erotic, perhaps more so than
    mortal human intercourse.  What is changed when they die, is the
    outlet/inlet for the erotic needs of the vampires, it is transfered
    from standard sexual practices to the acts of feeding and killing.  The
    whole vampire mythos is deeply rooted in sexual/erotic mores and
    imagery, Rice has consciously accentuated this.   Rice is also very,
    very good at eroticising things and blurring the barriers between same
    sex and different sex relationships.  Rice began her professional
    novelists career with romances and adult/erotic fantasy novels under
    different names.    What may be difficult for Macho-man Cruise, is the
    fact that Rice's vampires sometimes seem very sexually non-specific and
    their relationships both with other vampires and with humans are mostly
    intellectual and emotional without the fetters of physical sexuality to
    barr them from intimate relationships.  It is definitely a tough
    concept to get a hold of.
    
    Andrew
    
    If Cruise can't handle the part, good riddance.
    
    

    Re .55:
    
>  The one consolation that Rice will have is that no matter how miserable a
>time she is given by the producers, she will no doubt be crying all the way to
>the bank with a small fortune. 
    
    It's contagious! See also note 257.13.

RE                     <<< Note 259.56 by 3131::PRIESTLEY >>>

>    There are very, very definite erotic overtones to Rice's vampires, the
>    act of feeding for them, is profoundly erotic, 

  I suppose it's a matter of interpretation. To me the compulsion didn't sound
that frivolous. Rather it seemed like the descriptions you hear of someone's
addiction to cocaine. When they talked about the vampire feeling the victim's
heart it sounded to me the way Richard Prior described his relationship with
his pipe when he was freebasing. 

  By contrast, romantic attraction is something that you can more or less take
or leave. If you don't do it tonight, there's always tomorrow. This seemed more
like some sort of drug addiction or worse yet like baseball which draws you in,
occupies your every waking moment, and owns your sole. 

  George 

    And I thought _my_ reviews were embarrassingly self-revealing...
    
    Ray

    re .58, to some people, romantic love is the most addictive thing on
    earth.  It draws them in and occupies their every waking moment.
    
    Lorna
    

RE       <<< Note 259.60 by VAXWRK::STHILAIRE "Food, Shelter & Diamonds" >>>

>    re .58, to some people, romantic love is the most addictive thing on
>    earth.  It draws them in and occupies their every waking moment.
    
  I suppose you can be addicted to just about anything. Some are addicted to
love, some to drugs, some to pizza, some to baseball. From what I understood
reading the Vampire books, vampires were addicted to blood. If you read the
third book, Queen of the Dammed, you know why. Their friendships with each
other were very deep, but they were not in any way sexual since that part of
them had died. 

  So if "erotic" means "the way you feel about that to which you are addicted"
I would agree that the term is appropriate, but if it has a sexual connotation
then I disagree since that was not part of the Vampire experience. 

  This still leaves me puzzled over what Cruise is alleged to have been worried
about.

  George 

    re .61, maybe he feels uncomfortable about having such deep friendships
    with men that he would be addicted to sucking their blood.  Maybe he
    only wants to suck female blood.  Who knows.
    
    Too bad Anne Rice doesn't note here, so we would really know whether
    the vampires were in love.  People don't have to have sex to be in
    love.
    
    Lorna
    

  One problem is that the line between friendship and love is very thin. In
fact considering that people can love their mother, peanut butter, and love
their dog, it's not clear at all that there is any difference between
friendship and love. 

  As for Cruise, the friendship between his character and the Rain Man was
pretty strong. I'd certainly call that love. I don't see where this would be
much different. 

  I'm guessing that this is just bad reporting. More likely they had some sort
of difference in interpretation around the meaning of love as we are having
here, some one told someone who told a reporter and by the time it got out
it had little to do with the original argument.

  George

    re .63, yes, but there is a difference between love and romantic love. 
    And, then obsessive romantic love is something else, still.  I can love
    someone without being *in* love with them.    It seems to me that some
    people thought the vampires loved each other just as friends, and that
    some people thought they were in love.
    
    In Rain Man I thought the characters loved each other as brothers, but
    I never got the feeling they were in love.  I could contrast this with
    Fried Green Tomatoes where, even though Ruth and Idgie are never shown
    being sexual, I definitely got the feeling they were in love.
    
    I don't know which way Vampire would seem to me since I haven't read
    the books, because I think Anne Rice has such a boring writing style,
    but a couple people told me they thought Lestat was in love with Louis,
    and that Louis was in love with Armand.  Or, at least, that was the
    impression I got.
    
    Lorna
     

  That makes sense. And considering that we are able to argue about this, it is
quite possible that the actors and author had the same confusion we had. Maybe
it's not a case of Cruise being squeamish at all but rather a difference in
artistic interpretation.

  As for the writing style, I agree that the 1st book was very dry. The
writing style of the later books was much better.

  As for the relationships

Story line SPOILER, no ending stuff


  I guess the "love" thing depends on your definition of "love". It's really to
vague a term to mean very much. I felt that both LeStat and Armond were very
dependent on Louis for different reasons. LeStat seemed to be dependent on
Louis for economic reasons and for friendship. Armond for something else.

  Armond was dependent on Louis because Louis helped him to connect to a new
age. The theory Rice puts forward is that one problem with being immortal is
that after about 300 years go by you experience what Toffler called "future
shock". It's sort of like culture shock only it's caused by moving into the
future rather than moving to a new culture. 

  Unlike Louis and LeStat who were born and turned into Vampires in the late
18th century, a few decades apart, Armond was born and turned into a Vampire
back around the 15th century which was dominated by ritual and religious
suppression. It was a time when Europe was much the same as the middle east
countries are today. 

  After LeStat and Louis destroyed the old world Armond was clinging to he was
somewhat lost. Since LeStat was flipping out he turned to Louis as someone who
could teach him about the modern (c. 1790) world. 

  In Rices world, when Vampires can not make that transition they either kill
themselves or they "go underground" until they get their head straight, so
the choices for Armond were rather grim if he couldn't adapt to the new
world. Hence the dependency on Louis.

  All and all it's quite a remarkable system. Interview with the Vampire is a
dry book but it's worth plowing through to get to the others. In LeStat, you
get a different version of the same story. Louis makes LeStat out to be quite
a creep in his book. LeStat does a fine job of defending himself and setting
the story straight in his version.

  George 

    Keep in mind also that, by the time the movie is produced, it might
    only bear superficial resemblance to the book. Just compare Updike's
    "Witches of Eastwick" with the movie, or "Vanfire of the Bonities"
    (superb book, incredibly bad movie).
    
    In particular, don't expect a
    producer bent on big bucks to attempt to portray the subtle
    relationships of the Vampires discussed here, in which sexual feelings
    seem to have been replaced with something more subtle. Maybe (s)he will
    try to do so; but sex is such a staple of movies that I'd be surprised
    if it didn't find its way into this movie. Hollywood might think that
    the sexual appetites of three-hundred-year-old dead people would be
    titillating to an audience.
    
    So, if subtle vampiric friendship gets twisted into lust, then you have
    might well have homosexuality in the movie; and that might be what TC
    objects to.

    The main change that takes place in the vampires is physical, they shed
    physical requirements for food, oxygen, water, warmth, etc. as well as
    hormonal desires for physical sexuality, etc.  In the beginning, all
    the mental/spiritual feelings, desires, needs, etc. are still present,
    as much from habit as anything else, and in some cases are extremely
    exagerated because of the enhancement of mental function.  Eroticism is
    primarily a function of perception, a mental exercise rather than a
    physical, and would not, therefore, be involved directly in the
    physical change occuring with death.  Eroticism is also, in the case of
    a book or film, something that the characters may not feel, but the
    observer may perceive; it is quite possible that Cruise may object to
    the viewers possible perception of him in an erotic relationship with
    another man.  Love is also, by most people's standards, only
    complicated by sexuality, but not rooted in it.  Love is more of an
    emotional and spiritual function rather than a physical one, since
    vampires are primarily mental/spiritual/emotional beings,  feelings of
    pure love, uncomplicated by sexuality and perhaps re-complicated by the
    bloodlust, are probably still functional and perhaps accentuated. 
    Without the fetters of human physical sexuality however, issues of
    "homo" and "hetero" would have less meaning for vampires, and points of
    intellectual and spiritual compatibility would be more instinctive with
    the Rician vampires telepathic/empathic perceptions of one another.  I
    can certainly see where Cruise might have reservations about playing
    the role of either Louis or Lestat, because of this, however, he should
    have thought about it before he took the role, presumably he would have
    read the books before seriously contemplating taking a role of this
    sort.
    
    Andrew
    
    

    I just heard in passing that Cruise is being sued and is not doing the
    movie.  Anyone hear anything more specific?  
    
    thanks,
    Renee

  The Boston Globe had a book review about "Lasher", the sequel to her book
"The Witching Hour" which was really more of a book review about Rice's works
in general. In it they were lamenting the fact that she was stuck with Cruise
playing Lestat. I got the impression from the way that it was written that
there were some problems with him playing the part.

  Just another rumor I guess but after a while they add up.

  George

    I read the other day that Christian Slater has been signed to take over
    for the late River Phoenix, as "The Interviewer". So those of you who
    thought he should have been cast in the first place - albeit in one of
    the other roles, perhaps - might have something to look forward to. ;-)
    
    -b

	Does anyone have any further news on whether Cruise is still going
	to be playing Lestat or whether they've found someone decent...

	I've heard stories that they are going to tone down the story
	beyond all recognition if Cruise stays and that should make
	the film not worth seeing at all...

    
    Cruise is definitely going to be Lestat.  There was an Entertainment
    Tonight segment done on the set showing Cruise in makeup and TC talking
    about the role.
    
    DFW

    Will the story line stay entirely within what was covered in
    "Interview", or will it include stuff from later books? If this movie
    sticks to the first book, then they have the makings of a fantastic
    sequel in "The Vampire Lestat"!
    			Jim

RE       <<< Note 259.73 by 36905::BUCHMAN "UNIX refugee in a VMS world" >>>

>    Will the story line stay entirely within what was covered in
>    "Interview", or will it include stuff from later books? If this movie
>    sticks to the first book, then they have the makings of a fantastic
>    sequel in "The Vampire Lestat"!

  ... and they can go on with "Queen of the Dammed", and "Body Snacher".

  As always, it will depend on the box office from the 1st one.

  George

    
    
    I know it's late but my choice for Lestat would be a young Sting or
    David Bowie. I just think they both have a kind of dark side to them
    that would express itself on the big screen.
    
              -=-=-R~C~W-=-=-

.75>    I know it's late but my choice for Lestat would be a young Sting or
.75>    David Bowie. 

    I agree.  By the way, if you like the idea of Bowie as a vampire, go
    see The Hunger, with Catherine Deneuve (sp?). 

    The plot and pace is not at all that of a conventional vampire movie. 
    I found it enjoyable for that alone.  The film is very dark and
    brooding, but set in an townhouse in Paris instead of a castle.

    Bowie is a natural for playing unearthly creatures.  Catherine Deneuve
    is not the first person I'd think of for such a role, but she's quite
    effective in The Hunger.

    -Steve

    I saw a trailer yesterday and was wondering if anyone has seen this?
    (Is it even out yet??!) If so, could they post a review?
    
    
    Cheers,
    Ady

    I believe it comes out in October.  Entertainment Tonite is starting to
    show clips and hype it a bit.
    
    
    kim

Does anybody know the release date for this movie?  It's one I am really 
looking forward to seeing.  I like all the actors (Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt and 
especially Antonio Bandaras) and hopefully it won't disappoint.  It's 
interesting that Anne Rice (author of book the movie is based on) has 
completely changed her mind - she was so upset when Cruis was originally 
cast, but apparently has had a change of heart after seeing a rough draft of 
the movie.

    It's released on Boxing day in the UK according to Empire magazine.
    
    Ady

  I've heard November. Her other one, Exit to Eden, will be out any time
now.

  According to the Globe she took out a 2 page ad in the Times saying that
she thought the movie was ok.

  George

>>According to the Globe she took out a 2 page ad in the Times saying that
>>she thought the movie was ok.

yes this past Sunday's NY Times had her two page ad.  More than ok - she thought
the movie was wonderful - far exceeded her expectations and she kind of
apologized for earlier comments she had made - particularly about Tom Cruise. 
The whole tone seemed very genuine but then again it could be a publicity thing
to get people to go see it rather than boycott it based on her previous
comments. 

    I saw a TV advertisement for "Interview..." for the first time last
    night.  It really looks great, but then even the advertisements for
    lousy movies make them look like Oscar material.  The movie starts
    Friday, November 11.  I'll probably go to see it the following Monday
    at a matinee, that is, play hookey from work and go when there is less
    of a crowd and at a matinee price.
    
    I've read all of Ann Rice's vampire and witch books and am still
    waiting for the sequel to _The Mummy or Ramses the Damned_.  BTW,
    the title of the fourth vampire book is _Tale of the Body Thief_, not
    "Snatcher" as alluded to in earlier notes.
    
    I was immediately drawn into Rice's vampire world from the first page.
    I never wanted the books to end.  I read all four back to back.  After
    a while, I found myself wanting to live in that world, mostly because
    it would give me an eternity to explore the world emotionally and
    intellectually.  The blood and neck-bite stuff would be an unfortunate
    but necessary part of it.  If there really were a Talamasca group
    somewhere, I would probably want to join -- but only if there really
    were vampires and witches like Rice writes about.
    
    Think what you like about Tom Cruise as Lestat (my preference was
    Christian Slater as Lestat and Johnny Depp as Louis), but go to see
    the show -- then decide whether Cruise was any good or not.
    
    Carl

Slight moderator admonition: There's plenty of discussion of the vampire
*books* in the KOLFAX::BOOKS notes file.  Hint, hint. :-)

That said, I saw the TV ad last night for the first time, too, and was
pleasantly surprised at how un-Tom-Cruise-like Tom Cruise actually looked.
Not that I have any problem with the way he looks, in general :-), but I was
having a hard time picturing him as Lestat.  Until I saw the ad.  If the movie
is as good as that brief glimpse showed, I can understand why Anne Rice lost
her objections.  There may be hope for this movie!

-- Nina

    BTW, the latest issue of _Premiere_ has a big story on the whole
    hoopla, and some background on the production.

    As part of the pre-release hype, this week's TV Guide has an interview
    with Ann Rice.  The article reveals that there will be an Ann Rice
    biography of sorts on Lifetime cable, Sunday, October 30, 7:00PM ET.
    
    Carl

    Great movie! I think most, if not all of my fellow Anne Rice fans will
    really like it. Beautifully filmed, it's exciting, sensual, horrifying,
    tragic and even humorous at times. Tom Cruise may not look exactly like
    the Lestat all us readers have imagined, but he definitely IS Lestat.
    Now that I've seen his performance, I have a hard time imagining who
    else could have done so well. As for Brad Pitt, I would have preferred
    someone who enunciates better, but otherwise he does fine as the
    brooding Louis, and when other vampires comment on how beautiful he is,
    he certainly looks the part. The jewel of the movie, though, is Kirstin
    Dunst as Claudia. She makes the most perfectly exquisite little monster
    and steals every scene she's in. I nominate her for an academy award.
    Antonio Banderas is rather too old to be Armand, but the movie departs
    from the book in a couple of places, with no harm done. Indeed, I like
    the ending of the movie better than the book's.

    I hope the producers have a runaway hit and that they make scads of money.
    That way we can be sure they'll make the sequel.

    I liked it so well, I'm going to go see it again.

    I saw an interview with Anne Rice on the Larry King show over the
    weekend. It was taped on Friday and she was talking about how pleased
    she was with Tom Cruise, especially after she publicly denounced the
    casting choice and tried to distance herself from the production. She
    appeared to be delighted with the outcome and absolutely would not tell
    the audience who she would have picked for the role, if the casting had
    been up to her. She said Tom "was" her Lestat and couldn't picture
    anyone else doing it.
    
    If this does as well as it is supposed to, her books-turned-movie could
    eclipse Stephen King's in due time. I hope so.
    
    She said she was really astounded that this book was made into a movie
    18 years after it was written. 
    
    Amy
    
    PS - I'm so jealous because I won't have a chance to see it where I
    live for at least 4-5 months and then it will be subtitled!

	I saw this movie on Sunday and I really enjoyed it! I had to go
	home and check the book about a couple of things that I had 
	remembered differently. I was kinda glad that the movie was good
	enough to make me doubt my memory. I think Tom Cruise did a 
	great job as Lestat and the little girl playing Claudia was 
	perfect!! Now that I've double checked the book I want to see it 
	again!

	Donna

    I liked it.  Well, till the end.  But I'll explain.
    
    
    I found the movie much more palatable than the book.  Cruise did a
    decent enough job playing a jerk (and Lestat was a jerk of the first
    order), save for a few laspes, usually when offering a humorous remark,
    that seemed like it came out of the mouth of his Top Gun or Rain Man
    character rather than a stylish vampire.  Brad Pitt was gloriously
    angst-ridden and gloomy -- in the book, Louis is fairly insufferable
    about it and yes, I can understand where Mr. Pitt began to dislike the
    character -- but he was angst-ridden and melacholy in a heroic sort of
    way.  Call it instilling likable humanity into the character or what
    have you, but Brad Pitt did a very good job at making a depressing
    character enjoyable to watch.  And of course, he had his moments of
    being easy on the eyes.
    
    Actually, everybody did a decent enough job, although I missed about
    50% of whatever Armand had to say due to a thick accent.  And Stephen
    Rea looked at lot better in this movie (less wrinkled) than he did in
    "The Crying Game".  I do have to agree with one reviewer who did
    comment that Rea mugged his way through his role as if he were in a
    Monty Python sketch, but it was sort of a nice break from all these
    uptight, dignified vampires. :)
    
    My biggest quibble: the end.  I won't do a spoiler here, but suffice to
    say that what happens after Christian Slater drives off STRONGLY
    contradicts the nice, moody ending they'd set up.  Yeah, I realize the
    ending had to happen this way, but it was executed far too fliply and
    really destroyed the scene.  I was sort of involved in all this grand
    melodrama and then, whonk.  Standard horror movie ending.  Yuck.  It
    was a dumb way to wrap things up.
    
    Minor quibbles: you know, if these guys ate as much as they apparantly
    needed to, vampires would predate themselves right out of existance. 
    Also, I refuse to believe that this plethora ("Would you say I had a
    *plethora* of victims?" ;) of dead people with bite marks/lack of blood
    would go unnoticed by somebody who couldn't put two and two together.  
    
    "Hey, Jean-Claude, this is the umpteenth body we've dragged out of the
    Mississippi with bite marks and no blood.  You don't suppose there's
    something vampiric going on around here, do you?  You know, like the
    legends all of mankind has known since way back....?"
    
    "Non.  Just a mysterious plague.  Toss the body in the cart, Gaston."
    
    
    Homey don't think so, but I guess having Kolchak and Fox Mulder show up
    to investigate these killing wasn't exactly in keeping with the story
    line.  Us stupid mortals just don't know nuthin'.  :)
    
    Still, a stylish, if long, introduction into Anne Ricedom (as long as
    we don't count East of Eden and I'm sure most of us don't).  Kinda "The
    Age of Innocence" done with a lot of  neck and wrist biting. 
    Lots of blood flowing, lots of biting, lots of sexual under and over
    tones, a dash of homoeroticism, lots of frilly lace and spiffy
    costumes, a few decapitations, neck snappings, people on fire, stupid
    humans, a couple yipping poodles, and many, many dead rats.
    
    If none of this bothers you, and you don't mind two hours or so of
    angst, angst, and more angst, well, then, you'll probably like it.
    
    *** out of **** 
    
    kim

    
    We did the 7 PM show at GC in Tyngsboro and it was the most packed
    theatre I've been in in a few years.  Movie was exactly what I had 
    expected but worth admission.  I had just fininshed the novel w/in
    the last two weeks and enjoyed the transfer to the screen almost as
    much.  This was the 1st Ann Rice that I've read and between the book
    and movie it most certainly won't be the last.  With that out of the
    way and all other vampire movies aside...I would have to recommend it.
    Dracula took all kinds of Oscars didn't it?  Then maybe there will be
    a few for I w/ V.  I enjoyed it  A LOT MORE than Dracula.  
    Claudia was the scene stealer extraordinaire...Cruise good and
    Pitt...OK I guess.  Given the screenplay translation they all were
    great as a whole.  It wasn't too graphic or overly violent...just
    about right.  My wife said she wasn't scared until the very end.
    I had a couple reactions but I knew what was coming because of having
    read it.  
    
    3 outta 4 stars for a $40M dollar box-office till.
    
    ML

    We also went to see it this past weekend. I had tried to read the book
    a couple of times, but wasn't able to get into it, so I didn't know
    exactly what to expect, and we liked it a lot. 
    
    Tom Cruise did a MUCH better job than anyone could have thought
    possible. He was the arrogant, selfish vampire Lestat seems to have
    been. Brad Pitt was great, IMO. He played the brooding Louis to a hilt.
    AS has been said before, the little "ghoul" who played Claudia deserves 
    an Oscar nomination. The only flaw I would have is her today (1990's)
    accent saying some of her speeches. It just didn't sound right, but I
    have that trouble with most period pieces.
    
    Not having read the book, the only fault we find with the movie is that 
    at the end we still didn't understand why Louis wanted to do the
    interview. Maybe we missed it, but I don't think it was stressed
    enough for moviegoers who had not read the book. Both my husband and
    I came out wondering the same thing. 
    
    I agree with the comments about the Stephen Rea vampire charater. It
    was more of a parody than comic relief. I thought Antonio Banderas was
    a gorgeous vampire. He can bite me ANY time!
    
    See it on the big screen, the movie is perforce dark and will lose much 
    in video.
    
    Marilyn

    
    Saw it Friday, loved it all..even the "glass of rat blood".
    
    Numbers for the weekend...gross of 39 million,  thats' an average
    of 15 thousand per theater. Cost to make 60 million. So it's a real
    big success.
    
    I liked all the performances. Especially the little girl's. Tom
    Cruise was a kick.
    
    Siskel & Ebert gave it two thumbs up, and everything they enjoyed
    about it, I felt the same.
    
    Dave
    

    Re:.92
    
>    Not having read the book, the only fault we find with the movie is that 
>    at the end we still didn't understand why Louis wanted to do the
>    interview.

    It never even occurred to me to wonder. After 200 years of living, the
    sheer novelty of the event must have appealed to him. Also, given Louis'
    guilt-ridden character and the confessional aspects of an interview, it
    seemed quite a natural match to me. It may be as simple as this: Louis
    deeply regrets his alienation from human life, and here was an opportunity
    to cry on a human shoulder.

    I read the book too long ago to remember whether there was some other, more
    succinct explanation. 

    John
    

    
    
    hey, I FOUND IT! this note should be seperate. one about the casting
    another about the movie...only because it was started in July.
    anyway I can't wait to see it. Bravo...Tom & Brad!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    The movie was good and should be seeing but 2 things really bothered
    me. Lots of people didn't like the end but actually it was the beginning
    that really bothered me. I would have very much appreciated that they have
    done the real story of why Louis felt like he felt at the end of his 
    mortal life, why he wanted to die. The story of him and is brother was 
    to me far more interesting and revealing compare to he movie idea.
    The second thing was Armand. I just could not beleive that (I don't
    recall is name) the actor was Armand, too different physically from
    the original Armand in the book.
    
    Cruise really impressed me, I really didn't know he was that good of an
    actor. Also Pitt and Slater were very credible.
    
    So when is the Lestat the Vampire movie coming out?
    
    Richard 
    

    ..what??..no reviews of "Interview with the Vampire"...i'm a big Anne
    Rice fan and I enjoyed the movie. After reading the book i found it 
    easy to follow but i don't think it would be as easy to follow if
    you hadn't read the book and didn't know the characters....i think they
    incorporated the 'feel' of the book fairly well into the movie
    format...alot of people remarked that Tom Cruise would be a lousy
    choice for the role of Lestat..i thought he did a very good job...in
    my opinion, the best performance was turned in by the 12 year old
    actress who plays Claudia..i don't want to say too much here or i'd
    have to put in 'spoiler' warnings,..overall, i thought they did  a very
    good job translating the book to the screen although i do believe you
    really have to be a fan of this 'type' of movie or of anne rice to
    completely love it...some people i know found it boring but then again,
    i'm not sure how much they generally enjoy any type of 'gothic'
    storyline...vammpiric or not!...........anybody else care to opine?..
    /k 

    O.K. kiddies!  I saw this one last night.  First of all, Tom Cruise is
    Tom Cruise and I think the movie was done a great injustice by casting
    such a familiar face in such a mysterious role.  I actually thought he
    had some nice moments, particularly with the sarcasm and biting humor,
    but I would have loved to see someone else play the part.  Not sure
    who I would suggest...maybe Leonardo DiCapricio?  Wierd choise, yes, but
    he hasn't been pigeon-holed (yet) and I'll bet he could have brought
    something very interesting to the role.
    
    Brad Pitt wasn't bad either and Dunst was as chilling as she should
    have been, I guess.  But ultimately I was left wanting more from
    everyone.  The movie was a bit too long, and I didn't like the new
    ending (I'm sure you're all familiar with my changed-ending pet peeve
    by now), but I guess if you haven't read the book the ending wouldn't
    bother you too much.
    
    I agree with the afore mentioned Stephen Rae observations.  He was
    really annoying, but I thought Banderos (sp) was pretty cool.  I didn't
    have a problem with his accent, but it has been heard before, and again,
    it would be nice to see something new.
    
    I guess I get fed up with two things about Hollywood.  1, I myself am
    guilty of saying things like,"it was better then I thought it would be"
    after seeing a film I have low expectations for.  I've said this three
    times recently that I can think of: IwtV, Shawshank and Quiz show (and
    come to think of it Pulp Fiction). My point being that just once, I
    would like to go see a movie, with high hopes for a good time, and
    not leave the theatre disappointed.  Alas.  2, I would also love to see
    Hollywood trust that a story and it's plot points and characters can
    carry a movie regardless of who they cast.  Why couldn't Vampire have been
    cast with complete strangers?  Would we all go see it anyway?  Of
    course!  We all went to see Like Water for Chocolate and loved it
    (speaking for several of us anyway) and (yes it's a foreign film) that
    was a completly unknown cast.  Let us fall in love with these rich
    characters without the distraction of Tom Cruise in a wig.  Besides,
    when casting stars like Pitt and Cruise I think it influences how far
    they can take it in a film.  You're sure not going to see them kiss each
    other because all the teeny-boppers out there wouldn't be able
    to handle it!  It's too "out of character" for those actors.  But
    perhaps, it's "in character" for the characters themselves.  So let
    them behave as they should without worrying about the reactions of
    middle-america.  
    
    Up for debate?
    
    MJ

    
    I wasn't sorry I paid full price, but I wouldn't pay full price again,
    and I actually preferred the ending of the film to the ending of the
    book.  In good conscience, I should say that my biases tend not to
    follow everyone else's.  I think Interview is Rice's best book.
    
    I thought Cruise did a good job as Lestat because through subtlety he
    managed to preserve the relationship between Lestat and Louis that
    helped make the book interesting.  Louis was such an over-the-top
    emotion projector in the book, and Lestat was considerably more
    flamboyant and perverse.  Brad Pitt's Louis was more understated (and
    more believable, if that applies at all), and Cruise very wisely toned
    it down to suit.
    
    The script was obviously retailored to pave the way for the inevitable
    sequels, but it didn't bother me all that much.  I thought the little
    girl did a terrific job, Christian Slater did what he was called on to
    do, and the rest of the supporting cast could have sent in their
    performances by telegram.  The Paris vampires, in particular, were a
    big yawn, and only acquired any character by virtue of their cruelty to
    Claudia.
    
    DFW

  Often times when one of your favorite book becomes a movie you end up being
disappointed but this time the film lived up to the quality of the book. I
liked this movie a lot. 

  According to one list I saw, Interview with a Vampire ended up 10th on the
box office list so it looks good for the other books in the series being
filmed. I saw an interview with Cruise in which he indicated he was interested
in doing the part again. I hope he does, he did a fine job. 

  Brad Pitt did a great job as well as Louis. They did a fine job of capturing
the bantering that goes on between the two over the centuries. Claudia was
also great. 

  The guy who played Armond was too old. If memory serves, he was suppose to be
about 18 years old when he was made, not thirty something. That could be hard
to explain when they tell his story in the sequel. 

  Which by the way brings up another interesting point. They can't wait around
making these films and allow the actors to age they way they did in Star Wars.
These guys are suppose to look the same at the end of book 3 as they did in
book 1.

  Someone mentioned that the Paris vampires seemed underdeveloped. That is true
but as I recall their parts as individuals were not all that great in the book
either. They should get developed a lot more in the sequel ("Wolf Killer"). 

  I'm a bit biased in favor of this story but I'll still give it 

  **** out of 5,

  George

close the lid if you don't want to read about the ending, here comes the sun.
Ending SPOILER, 


Last chance


  There were actually two major things that were changed in the end. One of
course was Lestat jumping into Danial's car but the other big change was the
timing of Louis' visit to Lestat. 

  In the book, Louis visited Lestat and found him wasting away back in the 19th
century. Lestat then went "underground" for over 100 years before rising to
form his rock band. 

  It's a big point because in Rice's world Vampires seem to suffer from
depression brought on by societies changes over the centuries and going
"underground" can sometimes cure that as it did for Lestat. In the movie
version it's not at all clear how Lestat will get over his depression. 

  Also, if Lestat turns Daniel into a vampire then how will Armond get involved
with Daniel? Actually I guess book 3 is big enough as is and that part could
easily be dropped.

  George

    Great "Interview with the vampire" just arrive in Switzerland, I saw it
    2 times and I really like it. I didn't read already the book but I will
    do it quiet soon. I loved everyhting in the movie, actors, for my part
    Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt were perfect in their role. A lot of friends
    foud it great and really like it too. As we are always in late in
    Europe do you know if the video tape "Interview with the vampire" is
    already available for sale ? If yes, can I ask someone to buy it for me
    (I have got the system NTSC) and I would be very happy to have this
    movie in english at home (we can only have the french version in
    Switzerland - but I love to listen the real voices and at the theater
    they have sub-titles and I hate that it cut the picture). 
    
    Don't worry I will pay everything, the video tape and the mailing. 
    If you can help me you can send me directly your mail to 
    Florence BUGNON @GEO or by vaxmail :  GVA05::BUGNON. I really hope to 
    hear from you soon. I will be very very happy to see this movie 
    a 3rd time in english !
    
    Thanks a lot in advance for your help.
    Flo

RE .101 - It's not out on video yet.  Keep following the replies to note
20 to see when it will be released.

-- Nina

    First of all thanks a lot for your prompt answer, Anyway as soon as the
    videotape of "Interview with the vampire" is available for sale can I
    ask you to buy it for me and the same for "Legend of the Fall" I will
    try to get the other movie of the list in french here in Switzerland,
    
    Don't worry if you find these video tapes I will pay everything. Thanks
    again for your kindness,
    
    Flo 
    
    P.S I will try to be patient as I loved interview

    Flo,
    
    Yes, I can buy it and send it out to you.  I'll let you know
    when its available.
    
    Renee

RE .103 and .104 (which I moved from topic 735, by the way) - Please take care of any further
details/exchanges by e-mail.  Thank you.

-- Nina, with moderator hat on

    OK....i went through over the last year's review and didn't see
    "Interview With the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles". Didn't you
    pple in US see it?
    
    Appreciate a review on it....Thanks! 
    
    (Although it would probably be banned in here....but what the heck?)
    
    

    
    banned? Why? See note 259
    

    Redundant topic string moved here by mod.
    
    - Dave

    I saw it on videotape last night. It starts with A Message from Anne
    Rice. She again raved about the film and how happy she was with how
    they made her baby for the big screen. She also said (twice) that it's
    not about vampires, it's about who we are. She plugged her new book and
    said she wants to hear from her fans what we think about the books, the
    characters, and the film.

    I liked it. I was surprised at being squeamish with the all blood. I
    didn't like Steven Rea's performance at all, which was another surprise
    for me. Kirsten Dunst was wonderful - as someone else said, a little
    girl with a woman's face.

    Lisa

    > A Message from Anne Rice. She again raved about the film . . .
    
    I noticed that too, and was wondering if it was damage control to
    offset the reports (true or otherwise) that she was unhappy with the
    film when it was first released.
    
    > She plugged her new book ...
    ... which is Memnoch the Devil. She prevaricated a bit here; said that
    this may be the last of the Vampire series. It's the fifth, and it has
    been reported elsewhere that she has been given a $26M contract for
    books 5, 6, and 7 in the series.
    			Jim

    re .110

    >I noticed that too, and was wondering if it was damage control to
    >offset the reports (true or otherwise) that she was unhappy with the
    >film when it was first released.
    
    The whole thing confused me. First, she was very public in her
    condemnation of Tom Cruise's being cast as Lestat. She came right out
    and said he didn't have what it takes to do the role the way she
    imagined him. Then she was quiet while the film was in production. (I
    wonder how many revisions of her screenplay she (and others?) did.)
    Then the film came out and she did her about face, including the
    full-page ad in industry rags.

    What I don't get is that she has more money than she knows what to do
    with. What possible threat would a studio have over her? "We won't make
    your books into movies if you don't be good"? So? She's a writer. She
    already makes bzillions with her books. She can do what she wants - she
    sure did when she spoke up about Cruise. 

    She must think we really care what she thinks. 

    Lisa

    I saw it for the 10th times. I get the videotape from the US
    last monday. It's really a great movie. 
    
    Flo

    Having watched about two-thirds of the movie, I have to agree with the
    Stephen Hunter, the reviewer in the Baltimore Sun. He said that it was
    more like a series of illustrations for
    Anne Rice's novel than a movie in its own right. Lovely illustrations,
    though. Maybe it would have felt more suspenseful if I hadn't read the
    book first. As it was, I found myself saying, "Yeah, that was in the
    book. Yeah, that too ... "
    
    Tom Cruise did a surprisingly good Lestat. The Claudia character was
    terrific, and came along just in time to relieve the movie when it was
    getting oppressive. Favorite quote after formfeed:
    
    
    Lestat:  "Claudia, you've been a very, very bad girl."

    >The whole thing confused me. First, she was very public in her
    >condemnation of Tom Cruise's being cast as Lestat. She came right out
    >and said he didn't have what it takes to do the role the way she
    >imagined him. Then she was quiet while the film was in production. (I
    >wonder how many revisions of her screenplay she (and others?) did.)
    >Then the film came out and she did her about face, including the
    >full-page ad in industry rags.

    That's the way I heard it, with one addition -- she saw the
    almost-finished film before it was released, and changed her
    tune regarding Cruise -- apparently he fooled not only her, 
    but many other skeptics.
    

    Didn't like the movie very much,
    we felt lukewarm about it.
    
    I had not read the book, and I
    had trouble following some of the
    plot..especially the Paris scenes.
    
    What the heck was all that about
    anyway?
    
    Did like Tom Cruise, though, in the
    role, which is surprising because I
    usually hate Tom Cruise..except for
    "...Fourth of July."