Metascore
59

Mixed or average reviews - based on 19 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 10 out of 19
  2. Negative: 1 out of 19
  1. Reviewed by: Mike Clark
    100
    The generally faithful script is by Anne Rice herself, the director is "The Crying Game"'s Neil Jordan, and both seem true to themselves and as true as they can be to artistic and visceral expectations. [11Nov1994 Pg. 01.D]
  2. Reviewed by: Adam Smith
    100
    Bold, gruesome and melancholic, this Gothic horrorfest offers us much to sink our teeth into: Cruise - who effectively disappears from the screen for half the film's duration - is terrific, Dunst eerily compelling, Banderas hypnotic.
  3. His sumptuous film is as strange and mesmerizing as it is imaginatively ghastly. It's a sophisticated, spookily intense rendering of Ms. Rice's story.
  4. But if you can get swept up in the story, the movie is imaginative and compelling.
  5. 75
    But for all its visionary brilliance, the movie version of Interview never lets us close enough to see ourselves in Louis. We're dazzled but unmoved.
  6. 75
    A stronger plot engine might have drawn us more quickly to the end, but on a scene by scene basis, Interview with the Vampire is a skillful exercise in macabre imagination.
  7. Reviewed by: Staff(not credited)
    75
    This darkly effective horror drama holds plenty of interest, even for those who find Anne Rice's gothic cult novels unreadable.
  8. 75
    When Interview with the Vampire works, it's as compelling and engrossing a piece of entertainment as is available on film today. When it falters, the weaknesses seem magnified.
  9. The look is fine, the effects are special, the cast is solid, and Jordan (in company with Rice) makes a commendable effort to add a cerebral dimension to a visceral genre.
  10. 67
    It is, however, a very satisfying film, and surely the first in a long franchise (it does, after all, bear the subtitle The Vampire Chronicles).
  11. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    60
    But the film also has its turgid, dialogue-heavy stretches, and the leading performances, if acceptable, are not everything they needed to be to fully flesh out these elegant immortals.
  12. Unfortunately, the story, adapted by Anne Rice from her best-selling novel, sucks at the neck a little too long. A 23-minute snipping from this 123-minute movie would have done wonders.
  13. Although he works his hardest at the part and doesn't embarrass himself, even with the help of Stan Winston's vampire makeup Tom Cruise is plainly miscast as Lestat. [11Nov1994 Pg. F1]
  14. Reviewed by: Terrence Rafferty
    50
    The director, Neil Jordan, and his cinematographer, the great Philippe Rousselot, have given the movie an extraordinary seductive look, but Rice (who wrote the screenplay) doesn't provide enough narrative to keep the audience satisfied.
  15. Dramatically, though, the film is torpid.
  16. Reviewed by: Matt Zoller Seitz
    40
    Lestat, like all vampires, is a bad boy frozen in time; because the role is emotionally static and one-note, it can't hold our attention unless it's played by an actor with deep reserves of mystery, elegance, and sexual power. Cruise has no such qualities.
  17. Reviewed by: Richard Corliss
    40
    A vampire story needs vampires, sure, but it also needs a human victim to lead the audience into the vortex and help them escape it. Otherwise, the fear factor evaporates, and you get this mishmash: an interview in a void, a vampire movie with underbite.
  18. Literal-minded to the last, I felt nothing but pity for Tom Cruise, fanged, wigged and costumed, trying hard with his considerable talent to make his sanguinary appetite real. [12Dec1994 Pg. 24]
  19. 30
    Passionately anticipated and much ballyhooed, the film, alas, is little more than a foppish, fang de siecle costume drama. Its pulse barely registers.
User Score
8.0

Generally favorable reviews- based on 90 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 9 out of 9
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 9
  3. Negative: 0 out of 9
  1. Feb 21, 2012
    10
    My all-time favorite vampire film. A superbly scripted, beautifully shot and perfectly acted masterpiece. Call it a horror film or a periodMy all-time favorite vampire film. A superbly scripted, beautifully shot and perfectly acted masterpiece. Call it a horror film or a period drama or a supernatural thriller... it doesn't matter. It fits all molds. It scares at a deep-down visceral level. It is a grown-up film about the dual-nature of certain life (or perhaps death) choices. What it is NOT is some idiotic, throat-ripping, comic-book monster movie. Interview With the Vampire is a beautiful, sensual, frightening and memorable work of art. Full Review »
  2. Sep 1, 2010
    10
    Compared to the book, I found the movie's plot easier to relate to. It's a classic, one of the best vampire movies of all time, with so manyCompared to the book, I found the movie's plot easier to relate to. It's a classic, one of the best vampire movies of all time, with so many great performances. Excellent. Full Review »
  3. Apr 2, 2013
    10
    This review contains spoilers, click full review link to view. This film is great, when tom cruise turns brad pitt and then everything just gets better and when you think tom cruise is dead he isnt he bit the interviewer who was interviewing brad pitt and i think theres going to be a number2 Full Review »