Anyway, I had my sister over for dinner a couple of days ago, and we watched this thing, mainly because we both remembered the Buffyverse vampires making a lot of fun of it (and Anne Rice in general), but also because neither of us have seen it since our early teens and because my sister used to read everything by Rice she could lay her hands on. (A phase luckily long past, I might add.)
Interview with a Vampire (screw that dumb definite article) is basically the autobiography of the vampire Louis, who was given the dorkishly dubbed “dark gift” in 1791 by the vampire Lestat. Louis is a very introvert guy, really, who is very fond of speaking in florid poetic terms even when describing the most mundane of events, something which obviously becomes very tiresome after just a little while. (And, my sister asserts, something Lestat incessantly ridicules in his own “autobiography”, The Vampire Lestat.)
Seeing as the characters were mostly dull to the point of the soporific (with the occasional exception of Lestat, who from time to time displayed almost Spike-like qualities), the plot beyond incoherent and pointless, and just about everything else I can think of was equally horrible (although nothing really trumped the dialogue when it came to sucking), I won’t drag this out, but rather go for a more or less clean kill. Interview with a Vampire is awarded the following rating:
3.0 out of 10.
(Also, by the way, just to warn everyone: The homoerotic undertones are so screamingly obvious it would have hurt a bit, hadn’t they been the most entertaining parts of the whole movie…)
Posts
I remember Lestat being awesome in this, and little else.
20. November 2008 @ 02:17 ( Permalink )
And now you know that you don’t need to watch it again in case you might have missed some awesomeness, because there aren’t any. Beyond Lestat a couple of times, of course.
21. November 2008 @ 17:42 ( Permalink )