Interview With the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles

While I wouldn't ordinarily consider myself mean-spirited, there is something about failed movie franchises that I find extraordinarily amusing.  I'm not talking about the movies that kill a franchise (Batman and Robin), but the movies that were supposed to have sequels, but never did.  Street Fighter, Super Mario Bros., The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension, Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins, Godzilla (1998) --- and that's not even counting every comic book or video game movie that never spawned a direct sequel.  While Interview With the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles was, eventually, followed by Queen of the Damned, nobody from the original film reprised their role and the film was pretty loose with its continuity; Queen was more of a reboot than a direct sequel.  Still, it's hard to believe that such a successful movie --- it grossed almost four times its budget --- with such an ambitious subtitle didn't wind up being a tent pole film.  Maybe audiences just weren't that interested in Hollywood heartthrobs wearing frilly shirts.

"Doth he besmirch our honor, bro?"

Interview With the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles is, essentially, the 200-year life story of Louis (Brad Pitt), as told to a reporter (Christian Slater) in --- you guessed it --- an interview.  In colonial New Orleans, Louis was a plantation owner who was mourning his late wife and child.  He had lost his taste for living, and spent his time tempting death; as it turns out, he got more than he bargained for.  Thanks to his deliciously suicidal tendencies and hunky good looks, Louis attracted the attention of the vampire Lestat (Tom Cruise).

Hickeys hurt so good

Lestat turned Louis into an undead creature, but Louis had more in common with the grunge scene than just his hair; he had angst, which meant that he refused to take the life of another person.  Sure, watching Louis drink the blood of rats is fun for a while, but Lestat transformed Louis to be a companion, not a novelty.  He needed something to force Louis to stop moping and get on with his un-life.  Enter Claudia (twelve year-old Kirsten Dunst).

Adorable + Horrifying = Adorrifying?

Would turning an innocent child into a natural predator be enough to keep Louis by his side?  Is giving a child the power of evil a good idea?  Will Louis ever get over his whining and start killing people?  And where the hell do vampires come from, anyway?  Most of these questions get answered as Louis tells his tale, whether explicitly or not.

Perhaps the most impressive parts of Interview With the Vampire are the productions aspects.  The sets are pretty awesome throughout, peaking with Armand's ridiculously Gothic underground catacombs.  The soundtrack is pretty good, although occasionally over-dramatic; in a movie that has so many emotional bromances, though, that can be expected.  The costumes are also excellent period pieces, although the hair and make-up for the vampires was hit-and-miss for me.  I liked that the paleness of the vampires would depend on how recently they fed, and I thought Brad Pitt's vampire eyes were pretty cool-looking.  However, I couldn't get past some of the crappy wigs and Lee Press-On Nails used by some of the cast.

"Available in Natural or Glamor lengths!"

Production values don't make a movie, though.  Since this is, essentially, a vampire biopic, it needs a compelling lead and a solid story arc.  I enjoyed Brad Pitt's performance as the eternally morose Louis, but his character was not really one of action; everything he did was a reaction, which makes him less interesting than some of the other characters.

Louis, in action

The headlining actor in this film is Tom Cruise, and it's easy to see why.  While Lestat is not the main character in this film, he is the most active character.  Whether he is playing a villain, trying to fight loneliness, or merely gazing at Louis with his jaw hanging open in a not-at-all-homoerotic fashion, Lestat is the wheel that propels this story.

It's too bad that Tom Cruise isn't very good here.  I normally don't have a problem with Tom Cruise's acting, but this just felt like a poor match.  He wasn't scary when he was being evil and his wicked laughter felt forced.  He improved dramatically after Claudia plays her trick on Lestat, but it was a little late for that improvement to matter much.  Kirsten Dunst was actually pretty good as the spoiled vampire child, which shocked me, since she's generally pretty awful.  I thought Christian Slater was fine in his small part, too, although it wasn't too demanding.  Antonio Banderas was less impressive as the mysterious Armand; he might have been mediocre if his wig wasn't ridiculous, or if his character's scenes weren't almost entirely devoted to subtext.  Stephen Rea was a little more fun as Santiago, but he should have been more terrifying.  You also might recognize Thandie Newton as Louis' main house slave; she wasn't particularly impressive, but she wasn't bad, either.

As cool as some parts of Interview With the Vampire are, they just don't add up to an entertaining or horrifying whole.  I felt that director Neil Jordan focused too much on the look of this picture (which is admittedly great) and not nearly enough on the main actors.  Brad Pitt can play tortured in his sleep, but I thought he wasn't given enough to do in this movie.  Tom Cruise, on the other hand, had a much wider range of emotions to play with, but never came close to meeting all the demands of his character.

Tom Cruise emotes

Thanks to those to flaws, the film's pacing seems extraordinarily slow.  I remembered liking this movie when I first saw it, because the tortured and moody vampire was a novelty.  This movie does a great job with that desolate loneliness, but with the current influx of vampire characters in popular culture, it no longer feels special.

Maybe my problem lies with the source material.  I remember reading the first few volumes of Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles when I was younger, and I enjoyed the first couple of books (of which, Interview... was the first).  After a while, though, I realized just how annoying most of her characters are.  Take this story, for instance.  You have a wicked vampire (Lestat), a Goth-inspired depressed vamp (Louis), a bratty child (Claudia), a maybe kind of manipulative or maybe just bored blood-sucker (Armand), and another wicked vampire without a back-story (Santiago).  Who am I supposed to give a rat's ass about?  By default, it becomes Louis, but he is far from an entertaining storyteller.  Even what makes him initially special (his refusal to kill humans) is eventually brushed aside with barely a comment when he finally gives in to his nature.

Why so serious?

For all the technical prowess Interview With the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles has to offer, it's lacking in drama and interesting characters.  That's not a deal-breaker for an entertaining film, but this movie isn't much fun to watch and isn't gruesome enough to scare.  If you're a fan of Gothic horror, this might be up your alley.  I'm not, so this one definitely earns a "meh" rating from me.

All Good Things

 

Normally, I don't go out of my way to watch movies that had almost nonexistent  theatrical runs because --- and we can debate the merits of the American theatrical release system another time --- movies that I've never heard of usually suck.  I made an exception for All Good Things because A) Roger Ebert listed it among his 20 best of 2010 and B) Ryan Gosling is supposed to be a pretty good young actor.  If I had put a little more thought into it, I probably would have skipped this movie because A) as much as I admire Ebert's ability to express his opinions, we frequently disagree and B) I've only seen Ryan Gosling in Murder By Numbers, so it's not like I have developed any loyalty toward the man.  And I saw that movie in a second run theater, and more because I could get free refills on a small pop and popcorn and less because of what movie was playing.  Side note: if you live in the Chicago suburbs, I highly recommend any of Classic Cinemas theaters; they're cheap, fun, and will probably be employing handicapped people, and it's nice to see a non-grocery store doing that, even if it means I have to wait longer for my change.  Anyway, back to All Good Things.

David Marks (Ryan Gosling) is an upper-crust kind of New Yorker, even if he doesn't like it; his father owns a lot of properties in New York's Times Square, so he's used to snotty white collar folk.  By a happy work assignment from his father, David is sent to fix the plumbing at a tenant's apartment; this is how David meets Katie McCarthy (Kirsten Dunst), a blue collar kind of gal.  Whether it's because he genuinely likes her, or because he knows it will piss off his father, Sanford (Frank Langella), David starts dating Katie.  The two soon move in with each other, move to Vermont and open a health food store (named "All Good Things"), and get married.  While he's emotionally mysterious, David seems to enjoy being around Katie and her family's friendly gatherings, instead of his family's icy passive-aggressive-fests.  But, thanks to pressure from his father, the couple moves to New York City and David joins the family business, which consists of him collecting rent (in cash) from his dad's pornographic Times Square (this was the 70s, after all) properties.

Look at the happy couple.

Are you interested in this movie yet?  No?  Neither was I.  I'll just cut to the chase.  After a few years of unhappy New York time, Katie starts to threaten to leave David.  Bingo, bango, bongo, Katie vanishes, never to be heard from again.  That's in 1982, after 10+ years of marriage.  Fast forward to 2000.  The New York District Attorney decides to reopen the Katie Marks disappearance case, and is very public about it.  Was this a case of foul play?  If so, what did David do to cover up the crime?  If not, why does this feel so much like a murder case?

All Good Things is based on the life of Robert Durst, which makes this one of those "inspired by true events" movies.   Like so many of those films, this one errs on the side of biopic instead of making a fully dramatic film.  This is the story of a guy who (maybe) killed his wife and the things he did to keep it covered up.

Yes, he dressed as the world's ugliest woman.

The problem here is with the "maybe."  Answers are implied and other things happen because of it, but there is no satisfaction to be found within the dramatic arc of this movie.  Why?  Because it does not frame itself as a murder mystery.  Instead, the question the audience is supposed to be asking is why David is such a dick all the time.  The answer deals with a childhood trauma, but that's not enough to explain his behavior.  David is an asshole, end of discussion.  And maybe he murdered some people.  For whatever reason, director Andrew Jarecki chooses to focus on the less compelling story (why David's an asshole) instead of who killed who.

Let's be honest...killing those crazy eyes is self defense.

 I wasn't terribly impressed by the acting in this movie, and that's too bad --- I assumed that, at the very least, this would be an acting tour de force.  Ryan Gosling is perfectly acceptable in this complex role, but he's never very interesting.  And that's not a good thing when your character is an emotionally crippled accused murderer that sometimes lives as a transvestite.  Kirsten Dunst surprised me with her performance; I normally hate her stupid sad face (which she wears in most dramatic scenes), but it somehow felt appropriate here.  She showed her boobies in this movie, which means that I have now seen the breasts that Spider-Man yearned for, and that geeky thrill might have ruined my objectivity.  Frank Langella does a decent job as a snotty "old money" patriarch, but he wasn't outstanding.  I wasn't exactly a fan of Lily Rabe's performance, but she played her annoying part well enough.  I was impressed by the dramatic turns from comedians Nick Offerman and Kristen Wiig; neither was astounding, but they were solid supporting actors, which is a huge first step for most actors that think they're funny.  I thought that Phillip Baker Hall gave the best supporting performance, but his surprisingly deep character was treated poorly by the script.

"Treated poorly?  Tell me about it.  I overdressed for this trash."

 I think my biggest problem with this movie is provided by the tag line: "The perfect love story.  Until it became the perfect crime."  If that's how you want to sell this movie, you damn well better make sure A) it provides a perfect love story and B) it provides a perfect crime.  All Good Things does neither.  David and Katie never really knew each other (they never even discussed children until well after their marriage), much less showed any convincing screen love.  As for the perfect crime, we never see it.  What an awful, awful tagline.

This movie fails in many different ways.  The acting, while okay, never demands your attention.  The story is surprisingly boring, given its sordid true-life origin.  What makes this movie even worse is that it is told entirely though a flashback, where David explains things to a courtroom, lead by John Cullum.  This could be a great story about the fallibility of the narrator.  It could be a totally respectable murder mystery.  It could even be a decent tale of a man who overcomes suspicious circumstances to prove himself innocent.  All Good Things does none of these.  In fact, I am hard pressed to find any of the good things this title promises.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

Well, it's just about Valentine's Day again. I've always had trouble with the cinematic notion of what romance should be.  Romantic comedies are insulting to my intelligence (but maybe not yours, I'm not judging), and Nicholas Sparks movies are manipulative pieces of trash (I'm okay judging this one).  So, where does a moderately odd person like myself find his romantic movies?  Today, I find it in a Charlie Kaufman script.

Joel (Jim Carrey) seems to be a pretty normal guy.  Maybe he's introverted, or maybe he's just uncomfortable.  On the day before Valentine's Day, while waiting for his train to work, Joel is seized by an overwhelming urge to go to Montauk --- so he skips work and jumps on the Montauk train.  If you are unfamiliar with New York, Montauk appears to be a fairly ritzy beach town, although it is mostly deserted in the middle of February.  While spending the day there, Joel meets Clementine (Kate Winslet), an outgoing stranger with bright blue hair.  Initially overcome by shyness and shock, Joel eventually warms up to Clementine and the two really hit it off.  In fact, Joel offers her a ride home and, instead of going inside, she asks if she can go home with him --- just as soon as she grabs her toothbrush.

That's a pretty good first quasi-date, right?  Well, it's not.  Joel and Clementine have dated for the past two years, but don't remember it.  After they had a big fight, Clementine went to the Lacuna Company and underwent a procedure where they selectively erased all memories of Joel from her mind.  When Joel found out, he did the same to her memories.  Halfway through, though, Joel realizes that he made a mistake.  Sure, the mean memories leaving are no big deal, and he lets them go with a smirk.  But the happy memories, and there are so many of those, are too special not to hold on to.

Michel Gondry was, at this time, better known for directing music videos than movies.  Fair enough, the man has made some pretty awesome videos, notably for Bjork, Radiohead, and The White Stripes.  This film is way beyond anything he had ever done before.  Most of the time, when a director has music video experience, their movies have moments of visual brilliance, but they tend to misuse the actors and the script.  Not so much here.  Gondry's touch is obvious throughout the movie, from the lighting to the soft-focus camera work in the memories of Joel.  This isn't a visually interesting movie, this is a fantastic visual experience.  The camerawork is wonderful, showing the stars at their happiest and at their puffy-eyed and bleary-faced worst.  The lighting takes on a character of its own when the natural lights turn into a spotlight, hunting for Joel's memories of Clementine to destroy them.  This narrative is designed like a maze, so it is especially impressive that, except for the first jump back in Joel's memory, the movie isn't very confusing (surreal, yes; confusing, not really).  Gondry's editing and direction are to thank for this; he was able to establish visual cues (like Clementine's hair color) to let the audience know an approximate time for whatever events they are watching.

As impressive as Gondry's direction is, the bizarre screenplay from Charlie Kaufman is what stands out most.  From a purely technical standpoint, this is an impressive piece of work.  The story folds back into itself, winds around, folds into itself again and again and again, to the point where the story could just be a labyrinth --- and that still would have been a really cool movie.  What sets this story apart from Kaufman's earlier work, like Being John Malkovich and Adaptation, is that this goes beyond his normal "seriously, how do you come up with this stuff" plots and actually has an emotional core.  Joel and Clementine's relationship is  natural and believable and understated, and that's what makes it feel so true.  Sure, this could be another wacky story about opposites attracting, and some of their memories are just silly, but this is about puzzles finding their missing pieces.

The cast was really good, and I'm impressed with several of the performances.  This is my favorite dramatic Jim Carrey role, if only because he keeps his rubber face in check for almost the entire movie.  I really liked his performance; he wasn't terribly charming or witty, and he always seemed to say the wrong thing, but this was a vulnerable piece of work.  Kate Winslet was fabulous, as usual.  While I may not want to see everything she's in, Winslet has never been anything less than excellent in anything I've seen her in.  There is a tendency for female characters with loud personalities to be flighty or flaky, but her performance made her eccentric character less of a caricature and more of an impulsive friend.  The supporting cast was surprisingly good, given their limited screen time.  Kirsten Dunst, who I normally hate, was great as the love-sick young woman, and she had one of the more believable performances I've seen of a character high from the medicinal hookah (as the hep kids call it).  Mark Ruffalo was solid, although his haircut really irritated me.  Tom Wilkinson was also respectable.  Elijah Wood, though was downright creepy as the socially inept stalker of Clementine.  I was less impressed with Jane Adams and David Cross, but even their relationship had layers to it.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (which takes its name from an Alexander Pope poem, FYI) is the sort of thing that we ought to see more of in movies.  This could not have worked so well in any other form of media; this is the sort of film that I finish and feel excited.  Brilliantly written, flawlessly executed, and well acted.

Somebody requested that I review this movie a while back, but I was saving it for this "holiday."  Sorry for the wait! 

Here's a clip of Michel Gondry doing what he does best: blowing my mind.