X
- 2022
- TV-MA
- AMC
- 2022
- TV-MA
- AMC
- 2022
- TV-MA
- AMC
- 2022
- TV-MA
- AMC
Interview With the Vampire
Season 1 Premiere: Oct 2, 2022
5.7
Where to Watch
Where to Watch
Top Cast
Metascore
Universal Acclaim
Based on 35 Critic Reviews
81
86% Positive
30 Reviews
30 Reviews
14% Mixed
5 Reviews
5 Reviews
0% Negative
0 Reviews
0 Reviews
Metascore
Universal Acclaim
Based on 35 Critic Reviews
81
86% Positive
30 Reviews
30 Reviews
14% Mixed
5 Reviews
5 Reviews
0% Negative
0 Reviews
0 Reviews
With a quartet of knockout performances, this is Rice’s bloody, beautiful story told on screen anew. Now finally given the chance to wear its queer heart (and guts, and gore, and assorted viscera) proudly on its sleeve.
It’s a startlingly good adaptation of Rice’s book but stands on its own two feet, bring new dimensions to a classic story and having genuine fun delving into parts that were only hinted at in the novel and prior film versions. The competition may be tough this season, but Interview with the Vampire stakes out a serious claim as one of the best TV shows of the year.
User Score
Mixed or Average
Based on 122 User Ratings
5.7
50% Positive
61 Ratings
61 Ratings
10% Mixed
12 Ratings
12 Ratings
40% Negative
49 Ratings
49 Ratings
User Score
Mixed or Average
Based on 122 User Ratings
5.7
50% Positive
61 Ratings
61 Ratings
10% Mixed
12 Ratings
12 Ratings
40% Negative
49 Ratings
49 Ratings
There’s a sense of lush fullness, a sprawling, specifically Southern sensibility that lets the show grow into the tale it’s telling, embracing the eccentricities of these characters and giving the complex layers of their relationships with one another the sort of depth they simply could never be allowed in a feature film.
While Armand may be a fascinating character, his Louis and the introduction of the Parisian vampire coven/theater troupe do end up feeling stale, especially in comparison to the walking soap opera that was Lestat. .... Bogosian and Zaman, in particular, have a tantalizing chemistry that acts as the unexpected lifeblood of this second season, especially in the absence of an ongoing Lestat/Louis romance. .... “Interview with the Vampire’s” continued dissection of Daniel Molloy and a cast of vibrant characters deliver another juicy chapter of AMC’s Romantic epic.
There’s a confidence to this “Interview With the Vampire” that makes it worth the while even when it’s straining itself to hit all the biggest Gothic notes.
The evolution mostly works. Interview blends swoony Southern Gothic with cadaverous relationship farce, though it struggles when it shifts its gaze from the intriguing main characters.
The show’s first few episodes have energy and a sense of humor, which can be rococo. ... That momentum fades quickly, however. (Five of seven episodes were available for review.) In later episodes, sex and bloodsucking take a back seat to talk. ... The problem with the series, as it goes along, is that it increasingly makes you think about checking your email.
Amazing. You have to watch it twice to really take it in and appreciate the detail. There is a reason for every action, every line, and every scene. The sets, story, costumes and character development are all wonderful. The series's greatest strength is its ability to remain fairly true to it's source material while still taking refreshing creative liberties that will feel nostalgic yet unique in its approach. I tend to be a little more on the conservative side, but still found this show to be one of the best tv series I've seen in the last few years. It's inclusive without being "woke". The inclusivity is addressed so well that the series manages to successfully avoid pushing political agendas onto viewers while still addressing social topics of race, sexuality, humanity, and abuse. The characters are all complex and well developed. It does have a certain level of silliness, but still is a poignant and elegant vampire series to be taken seriously. There is an appropriate balance of horror, love, intellect, and mystery written into the story. A wonderful series I hope stays around for years to come.
Report
Look, it's a good vampire show. Louis is excellent, some of the changes are fairly welcome, the dialogue is pretty on-point, and it's incredibly high budget.
So why the 6/10? Well, I'll start by saying I don't care that Louis is black. It works. I mark the show down because of a few things, and all of them at their core have to do with the fact that I don't feel as though the creators really GOT what made the gothic charm of the original book so powerful.
The pace is all over the place. They spend too long in America, but it doesn't linger scene-to-scene. And Vampire Chronicles should really linger, with haunting quiet moments of reflection, slow scenic shots, and moments where they are showing - rather than telling - every emotion on the face of the characters. That's the one area the previous movie did well, which this show does so poorly. There's no pause for reflection - just a string of stitched-together scenes with all quiet cut out, like a mid 2000s YouTube video. But Interview should be quiet in between the storms, to reflect the life of the immortal beings it focusses on.
My second major complaint is that they sexualise the characters. An absolutely marvellous thing about the books (and movie) was that it is a romance without it being about sex, gender, age ... anything. It's simply eternal love. The Anne Rice vampires were unable to have sex, and that really worked. Companions were companions, and it meant more than human love. I really don't care that they **** it up by a factor of six. My complaint is that they changed the source material to move away from something which made Chronicles vampires so incredibly original and interesting.
My last major complaint has to do with the casting of Lestat and Claudia. Lestat is supposed to be incredibly charming, but instead he comes off as poncy, smug, and unlikeable at times. The actor does incredibly well during scenes of anger or higher emotion, but scene to scene he doesn't work as Lestat. Meanwhile, this Claudia's performance pales in comparison to Dunst, but that's not my main issue with her. The biggest problem here - and perhaps time will tell it to be the biggest problem with the show - is that they got an 18 year old to play the part of a 14 year old, who was 10 in the movie and 5 in the books. Claudia's entire hook is that she's a child vampire. But she's not even that anymore. Further proof that the writers of this show don't get what made the books great.
I'm excited to see where they take it, but seeing as Lestat is the most important character in the entire series, I'm not holding out a lot of hope due to the casting. They turned the Prince of Darkness into Pouting Prissy Queen (and not the good kind!), and that hurts right in the childhood.
Report
An interesting original vampire series. Don't expect to find Anne Rice's characters or stories here.
Everyone is re-imagined with different backstories and motivations. Almost every location is different. Time periods, both past and present, are changed.
There are some slow moments, but that's to be expected early in a series.
The casting is silly. Jacob Anderson is a great vampire, but would have made an excellent Lestat. Similarly, Sam Reid feels more like Louis with a nice Brad Pitt vibe. Yet my biggest dislike for the casting is that Eric Bogosian is too old to play Daniel and become a vampire later in the series.
If this wasn't based on a long and very popular series of books, I'd probably have rated it much higher. If you're an Anne Rice fan, like me, you probably will not want to watch this.
Report
Production Company:
- AMC Studios
- Dwight Street Book Club
- Stillking Films
Initial Release Date: Oct 2, 2022
Number of seasons: 2 Seasons
Rating: TV-MA
Awards
International Online Cinema Awards (INOCA)
• 5 Nominations
TV Scholar Awards
• 3 Nominations
Critics Choice Super Awards
• 3 Nominations