Interview With the Vampire

Cleverly structured and cinematic, this second series of Interview with the Vampire is even better than the first – which is to say, it’s bloody good.

It embraces both the intellectual and the carnal in ways that aren’t often seen on TV and were arguably even lacking from Jordan’s version.

I'm still nursing the TV ["hangover"] version after watching The Vampire Lestat (complimentary, of course). The Vampire Lestat sits in a unique place within the overall series, both a sharp pivot from the straightforwardly formal interview that preceded it and a chaotically thrilling continuation of the existing story.

A mix of high-camp melodrama and thorny philosophical questions about memory and the stories our lives inevitably become, Interview with the Vampire remains the best sort of genre series—one that’s not just a cracklingly good story in its own right, but one that still manages to reflect genuine truths about the human experience of the world we live in now.

Interview with the Vampire is a toothsome, moreish drama that proves there’s life in the undead yet.

Thanks in part to the cunning charm of the period story, balanced by its present-day sections, Interview with the Vampire meaningfully comments on identity, intersectionality, and abuse, while still managing to be an intoxicating series about guys with gigantic incisors who sleep in coffins.

Lean into the camp, as Cruise did in 1994, and the series might have gone somewhere. But this retelling is short on mischief and, amid the fountains of gore, it lacks a pulse, much less a heart.

It always happens that when a new adaptation of something comes out, people have a negative opinion of it. Here we have an adaptation that seeks to do the same as the movie, tell us the story of Louis and a few more vampires. This series is an example of how good an adaptation can be, because it not only emphasizes what happens in the book, it also makes changes that in my opinion are very clever and what a way to exploit a story through the medium it offers. I love this series and what a delightful story. I personally love the handling and direction of the characters as they really grab you. What a way to grab the audience. It was a journey of emotions and drama that I will not hesitate to repeat.

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 gayed 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.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Dissapointing, again a "re-make" of really good movie that it was. As i was excited about the series and maybe something fresh new... i didnt get what i wanted.

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.