This is one of those Sylvester Stallone gems that both seems like it’s gained a respected following, but has never become a high profile hit. It doesn’t fall into the light hearted fare like Tango & Cash or Demolition Man or the substantive drama of Rocky or First Blood. Instead, this is a very good gritty cop thriller with a definite 1970’s aesthetic boasting a great performance by Rutger Hauer that foreshadows his acclaimed work in Blade Runner and The Hitcher. Nighthawks has its definite merits, but surely demonstrates why it’s a lesser noted film for Stallone.
When Europe’s most feared terrorist known as Wulfgar (Rutger Hauer) explosively announces his presence in Manhattan, two elite undercover NYPD cops (Sylvester Stallone and Billy Dee Williams) are assigned to stop him before he strikes again. However, the ruthless terrorist has other plans for the city – and the detectives – as he begins to hold its citizens in the grip of fear.
In the wake of big blockbuster successes like the Rocky and Rambo movies, and films with more flash and crowd pleasing excitement, you can understand how Nighthawks kind of flies under the radar. It’s very grounded and much more low key. It is also a slow building film with a focus on the psychological aspects of its main adversaries, and capturing that gritty, urban New York street cop vibe. Still, within that context, you’ve got a very admirable crime thriller here lead by some strong casting choices across the board.
I really believe Stallone leads this film quite well. Detective Sergeant Deke DaSilva is a solid cop who doesn’t back down easily. He takes on crime with intensity and fierce dedication, even if it costs him his marriage or his well being. Stallone makes DaSilva a tough cop, but one with a morality and heart. Despite the fallout with his wife, Deke still desires that loving connection, and he won’t become the cold blooded assassin that the British counter-terrorism specialist wants him to become. Stallone does a solid job keeping DaSilva true to who he is sticking to his principals as a seasoned cop, doing his duty, but doing it his own way. We see him as a perceptive, smart cop that is dogged in his pursuit of Wulfgar.
As DaSilva’s partner, Detective Sergeant Matthew Fox, Billy Dee Williams entirely carries his own. Fox can be more even tempered and flexible than DaSilva, allowing for him to keep his more passionate partner grounded and focused. Billy Dee also has some playful moments adding a few minor moments of levity as, again, a counterbalance to Stallone’s harder edge intensity. Still, when the situation gets serious, Fox is as solid of a cop as anyone.
Rutger Hauer has shown his talent for brilliance, and Wulfgar is no exception. He brings a cold, calculating sophistication that forges his gravitas. When Hauer is on in a film, he captivates your attention with a electrifying presence, and he does that here. As Wulfgar, he can be frightening because as dedicated as DaSilva is, Wulfgar is equally so to his cause. You know he’s a sociopathic killer who is a vehement believer in these radical causes. He’s more than just a hired gun, and that makes him immensely more dangerous. It’s not about money for him. He inflicts this death and terror for a political purpose that he believes in, and he is not going to stop. As the British counter-terrorism specialist says, “He’s only beginning.”
I also have to give some praise to Joe Spinell who portrays Lieutenant Munafo. While his role is minimal, he’s damn good carrying a commanding weight and authority. He mainly works opposite Stallone, and keeps the somewhat hot headed DaSilva in line very convincingly. Of course, Persis Khambatta complements Hauer extremely well as the dangerous, cold-hearted Shakka. It’s a polar opposite turn from her role in Star Trek: The Motion Picture, and that is largely welcomed along with her rich, beautiful black hair.
Like I said, this feels entirely like a 1970’s cop film with the gritty style, Earth toned fashions, Stallone’s beard, and sort of a streetwise funky vibe of the score. It might be an early 80’s film, but you can find plenty of bleed over from the previous decade through to about 1983. Considering this started out as a second sequel to The French Connection, it’s easy to see why this works so well in that context. The pacing is methodical lending more towards the dramatic development than excitement. The film could probably use a little more excitement to ramp up the danger and stakes in the second act, but especially for its time, this was quite good.
Now, Nighthawks surely has a few action set pieces including a great foot chase through the New York streets and into the subway. However, it is very much a thriller built on suspense and tension. Stallone and Hauer create this electrifying connection which drives the entire film. The sequence on the Roosevelt Island tram is a great example of those personalities at conflict enhancing the peril of Wulfgar’s game. His terrorism is no longer just about a cause, but a game of wits between both men. Wulfgar toys with DaSilva, bringing him in so close, forcing the Sergeant to look him in the eye time and again, but denying him at choice to fight back. This results in a nicely solid and taut piece of work. The ending is superb focusing on a great deal of suspense and imminent peril, but I would think a modern audience might feel it’s not as climactic as it could be. This ending has become the most memorable aspect of Nighthawks, and it is executed with great care and a few inspired visuals.
As I said, this is a film build as a slow boil thriller than an exciting action ride, and I feel it succeeds at that. Surely, more could have been done to intensify the narrative and build more momentum going into its climax. Regardless, I’ve always appreciated and enjoyed Nighthawks. Stallone does a really solid job complemented well by Billy Dee’s supporting role, and greatly counterbalanced by Rutger Hauer’s chilling brilliance. If you enjoy the work of either Stallone or Hauer, I definitely believe this is one you should not overlook. Bruce Malmuth did a fine directing job here, but in a fourteen year career, he never had a breakout hit. His only other high point was the decently effective Steven Seagal action vehicle Hard to Kill. With Nighthawks, it’s a nicely solid film that likely won’t blow you away, but may indeed intrigue you through the high quality performances it offers.
Growing up in the 80’s I was a fan of G.I. Joe, and owned many of the toys that the cartoon generated. However, I was never that hardcore of a fan. As I grew up, the franchise didn’t stick with me as I gravitated towards Transformers overall. When this live action movie, directed by Stephen Sommers, was being made and released, it didn’t grab my attention. I didn’t give it a chance until a strongly opinionated friend of mine, who was a big G.I. Joe fan, stated that he did enjoy this movie. One iTunes rental later, and I was approving of this movie. Yes, it has problems, and has some serious unfaithfulness to the source material, but it’s a big, enjoyable science fiction stylized action movie, regardless.
Two soldiers stationed in Kazakhstan, Captain “Duke” Hauser (Channing Tatum) and his partner Ripcord (Marlon Wayans), are ordered to transport special warheads created by MARS, an arms manufacturer controlled by James McCullen (Christopher Eccleston). When they are attacked by a highly advanced terrorist group, led by Baroness Anastasia DeCobray (Sienna Miller), they are saved by a top secret, international special forces unit known as G.I. Joe. The leader of G.I. Joe, General “Hawk” Abernathy (Dennis Quaid) is on the trail of these thieves: an evil organization called Cobra. While Duke and Ripcord train to join the Joes, McCullen is secretly working for Cobra and plotting to recapture his metal-eating “Nanomite” warheads. Duke and Ripcord, with help from Heavy Duty, Snake Eyes, Scarlett, and the rest of the Joes, must prove that they are Real American Heroes by stopping the launch of these warheads before Cobra uses them to take over the world.
There are several alterations to characters and their relationships from the familiar comic book and cartoon source material. Why filmmakers have this compulsion to make changes of these kinds escape me. I don’t mind adapting a concept or idea to suit the live action filmed media as opposed to the more fantastical mediums of comic books and cartoons. However, the changes here didn’t need to be made to make the idea of G.I. Joe work as a live action movie. They were simply creative decisions made for whatever reason to tell the story these filmmakers wanted to tell, despite whether or not it fit into who these characters had been for over a quarter century. I’ll touch on these as I comment on some of the cast, as I have done some light research to understand the divergences at hand.
This movie has some acting talents that seem questionable to me at both the time it was released and in retrospect. Obviously knowing Marlon Wayans from increasingly badly received comedic vehicles, he was the most peculiar casting choice. While Wayans’ character of Ripcord does have a playful, somewhat silly personality at times, he’s decently enjoyable once you begin to take the film as a light, popcorn movie adventure. He even has a moment or two of charm as he begins to develop some friendly relations with Rachel Nichols’ Scarlett. As the film goes on, and the threats become more serious and imminent, Wayans rises to the occasion to make for a nicely respectable cog in this action centric cast.
Channing Tatum is someone that I’ve come to know as a rather uncharismatic actor with not much to offer. While he surely doesn’t give us anything close to the Duke fans knew from the original cartoon series, who was a very strong, authoritative commanding officer, he is fine in this younger iteration of Conrad “Duke” Hauser. It’s not a particularly dimensional performance, which could have helped in some instances, but Tatum decently fits the role as written. It’s fortunate that the film has so many characters you can fixate on so not to be distracted by Tatum’s limited abilities. It’s not an outright groan inducing performance, just a flat one that is aided by some decent comedic chemistry with Wayans. Still, a far better actor was surely available to cast in this role to make him a more standout lead instead of blending into the ensemble.
Thankfully, we have some strong, vibrant villains to enjoy. Christopher Eccleston is sophisticated, intelligent, but also despicably vile. He injects charisma and slick savvy into McCullen, aka Destro, that is distinctly different from his Sunbow cartoon incarnation, but ultimately, follows the character as he has been developed through other media over the years. Eccleston has a very good presence conveying a contemptuous weight towards the world without it feeling one dimensional. He has a very elaborate, smartly devised plan to place himself in control of the world. He works greatly as a global level villain whose motives nor agendas are shallow in the least. Plus, the English actor works a very solid Scottish accent.
The filmmakers made serious changes to the Baroness, who is supposed to be an Eastern European straight-up villain, but is now simply Duke’s American ex-girlfriend Anna Lewis who has been specially manipulated into being a villain. Regardless of this, Sienna Miller is endlessly and immensely hot in this very femme fatale role. She plays it with a lot of bite and sexy assertiveness. She is a bad ass villain that would’ve been perfect if the filmmakers played it faithful, but as it is, she does a damn good job making the Baroness alluring, dangerous, and intriguing. Essentially, this character change was made in order to create a romantic relationship for Duke to grapple with, and while it’s nicely executed, it still would’ve been more pleasing to see the real Baroness here.
Lee Byung-hun and Ray Park are probably the best parts of this movie portraying Storm Shadow and Snake Eyes, respectively. Both characters are straight awesome here. Storm Shadow is beautifully lethal and stealthy with a real cutthroat, edgy presence. I think he truly lived up to many fans’ expectations through an excellent, sharp performance. Obviously, Snake Eyes has no dialogue, but Ray Park’s expert athletic and martial arts talents shine through.
Cobra Commander is here in this movie, but doesn’t declare himself to be as such until the end. We are essentially given an origin story for him that is very much inline with that of the Baroness. For those that haven’t seen the movie, I don’t wish spoil the film’s intended surprises, but let’s say that it’s not the Cobra Commander you’re used to or expect. He was my favorite character from the 80’s cartoon series due to being a rather excitable, egotistical fool, and even there, his back story was never entirely consistent. What we even got in the animated movie was not very palatable to me. So, when I saw this movie, none of this new back story really hit a bad nerve, but it would have been nice if the filmmakers attempted to make him look like Cobra Commander in his final moments on-screen. Reportedly, they were fixated on the hooded look for the character, and avoided using it for understandable iconography reasons. Still, as the sequel demonstrates, the chrome masked version was easily adaptable, and its absence comes off as even stranger since the filmmakers put an odd translucent mask on him at the end, anyway.
The question is if all of these objectionable changes make this a poor movie. I suppose that depends on your perspective. I would imagine many very serious G.I. Joe fans with a knowledgeable and loyal history for the franchise would be upset by these arbitrary alterations. For a more casual fan, like myself, they don’t break the movie, but certainly make it less than it potentially could have been. It’s a tad surprising that this movie was co-written by Stuart Beattie, who I recently gave vast amounts of credit for his screenplay for Michael Mann’s Collateral. That was a brilliant, introspective movie of great, unique depth. This is far from that. Beattie’s co-writers have shallow filmographies with nothing much to really say they are exceptionally good or bad screenwriters. I’m not saying that this script is bad, though it has some shortcomings and flaws, but in terms of attempting to be a faithful adaptation, it has a lot of wrong turns that I’m not sure who is to directly blame for them.
Now, the quality of the CGI here is about standard for a Stephen Sommers movie, unfortunately. The effects in The Mummy were really good for 1999, and still hold up fairly well today. However, Sommers’ films have since become larger scale productions requiring more elaborate visual effects, and this is evidence of that. The CGI is used extensively, and is not really that good to be given so much screentime. Among six visual effects companies that worked on this, there’s no real distinguishing level of quality. I would be hard pressed to say any of the visual effects shots are anywhere in the neighborhood of great.
Still, despite the lacking digital effects, Sommers delivers some solid action sequences. They are big, explosives scenes with some inventive ideas and nicely choreographed fights. All of this action is very well shot showing that Sommers knows how to present and construct action sequences very competently. Plus, he knows how to inject a real sense of entertainment value into everything, even if some of the funny bits are somewhat extraneous. Still, the sprinkles of comedy entirely suit Sommers’ style that we saw in The Mummy and so on. A definite action highlight is seeing Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow battle, and Sommers treats it as a special attraction. There’s an early on battle between them, but the climax gives us the real juicy stuff. It’s just bad ass all the way through, if delivered sparingly, and I only wish there was more of it. Hopefully, I will get my wish in the sequel.
While G.I. Joe always had a bit of advanced technology giving it all a slight science fiction edge to it, this movie really pushes that full boar by even stating it takes places in the “not too distant future.” This is a movie of very advanced technology with people communicating through holograms, using nanomite weaponry, energy based weapons, entire underwater Antarctic lairs, and various other fantastical items. It does fit alongside much of the established franchise mentality, but it probably pushed the envelope further than it needed to. I like a little high tech gadgetry in G.I. Joe to make it feel special and unique, but I think a live action movie should probably ground the ideas more. Take it more away from the cartoony aspects, and make it a little tougher, more hard edged with contemporary weapons. While I found the film fun, this film franchise really does need to go that direction so it can plant its feet in the ground and push forward with a strong foundation. Take away the almost cyborg-like accelerator suits and the energy guns, and give us more down and dirty stuff. Ultimately, I think that sells easier and stronger to a wide audience. We can take a little fantastical science fiction every now and then, but if you’re setting the film in a recognizably contemporary time and not the especially distant future, sell it that way. Give us a bad ass military guy unloading live rounds from a machine gun. Laser weapons were used in the cartoons because they were cartoons. You couldn’t show people getting shot with bullets and dying in that medium. This is a live action PG-13 movie. Mature the content a little, and give action fans and the adults who were kids in the 80s something that appeals to them more. Don’t make it too violent, but do enough to be bad ass, which is what the soon-to-be-released sequel, G.I. Joe: Retaliation, seems to have done. Still, we’ll see about that in a few days.
The climax itself is full of plenty of action with both Ripcord piloting a Night Raven jet to intercept McCullen’s nanomite warhead missiles, and the assault on McCullen’s Antarctic lair. Like with the whole film, it’s tightly edited with constant energy propelling the story forward. The dramatic tension is kept high, and these intercut storylines flow very well. We get some very good, heroic pay-offs, but we ultimately understand that this is just the setup. G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra is the story that puts all the heroes and villains into their proper places to give the franchise a launching point. Plots have still been set in motion by Destro and Cobra Commander that will be followed up on in the next film.
Again, this is a film that I do find enjoyment from, but surely not frequently as I’ve watched it maybe four times in three years. It’s a nice, enjoyable ride with some very well executed action sequences that do aim to please, and a fine dash of humor and levity to keep it fun. It has a decent cast that generally does enough to be closer to Stephen Sommers better work, but it’s still a movie that could’ve benefitted from some better creative direction. I’m hesitant to give it a big endorsement because, again, there’s plenty of bad CGI all over the place and it fails to faithfully adapt the source material. For what it is, I think it’s mostly well done. It’s not the G.I. Joe movie that fans wanted or expected. The animated movie really diverted into very strange territory that I still find not to my taste. I don’t own that movie, but I do own this one. It’s closer to what a G.I. Joe movie should be focusing on terrorism and advanced technological warfare, but it did need someone at the helm that could shape it into what the fans desired. I do think it’s a better movie than reputation has seemed to label it with. There is plenty of entertainment value that surely never gets to the annoying levels of Michael Bay’s Transformers movies. I would recommend giving it a chance, but knowing that it still falls short of its potential in several areas. If for nothing else, it’s worth seeing Storm Shadow and Snake Eyes clash.
Up until about a month ago, I had only seen the James Bond films from The Living Daylights onward. So, this became my first exposure to Roger Moore as Agent 007. I was mainly attracted to the film because I got hooked on the title song by Duran Duran. While A View To A Kill received a very negative criticism in its day, and even Moore himself holds it as his least favorite that he did, I found the movie to be quite enjoyable. It’s clear that Moore likely did have far stronger outings, but other Bond actors would have far more ill entries in the franchise.
British spy Agent 007, James Bond (Roger Moore), retrieves a high-tech silicon chip from the U.S.S.R., a chip that is identical to a prototype British design capable of withstanding a nuclear electromagnetic pulse. The British suspect industrialist Max Zorin (Christopher Walken) of leaking details of the design to the Russians. When Bond is sent to investigate he finds that Zorin is stockpiling silicon microchips, and is secretly planning to corner the world microchip market by literally wiping out Silicon Valley. In addition to Zorin himself, 007 must contend with the madman’s beautiful and deadly companion May Day (Grace Jones), but is aided by the lovely geologist Stacey Sutton (Tanya Roberts). Bond’s mission will take him from the heights of the Eiffel Tower to the towering danger of the Golden Gate Bridge to stop Zorin’s maniacal scheme.
What always turned me away from checking out Roger Moore’s Bond films was the stated campy nature of them. I didn’t want to see a silly James Bond. However, if this film is any evidence as to Moore’s overall best quality approach to the character, I find it quite entertaining without betraying the integrity of the character’s legacy. I certainly do prefer Bond actors who put more dramatic weight into their performances, but Roger Moore is far from giving a bad performance in this film. While his 57 year old age was clearly evident in this film, which was partly to blame for the film’s negative criticisms, Moore still brings a charming, suave sensibility mixed with a fine wit and levity. The only real downside to his age is the fact that he couldn’t be highly involved with the action scenes. Right from the pre-credits sequence, you can tell it is a stunt double doing the rigorous work while the filmmakers edit in close-up shots of Moore done on a soundstage. It gets more seamless in later action sequences with much better close-ups, but it varies, especially with the rear screen projection shots in the San Francisco chase sequence. Regardless of this, I think Roger Moore is quite enjoyable in this portrayal of Agent 007.
Now, I really like the opening title sequence. Obviously, Duran Duran’s title track ensnared me into watching the film, and it is a great collaboration with composer John Barry which became a classic for the band. I really like a couple of Duran Duran songs, but this one really hits up another level with a mysterious and seductive quality with an exciting sonic punch. It definitely has the feel of a Bond title track, but with a sound distinctive of its times. The credits sequence goes along well with the lyrics with the use of fire and ice, and using some very 1980s black light effects to create a series of vibrant, stylized images against black backgrounds. As the best of these sequences do, it sets up a very exciting and intriguing tone for the movie as a whole.
Overall, the action scenes are pretty good. They are thrilling and imaginative as well as well plotted, shot, and executed. While they often have a little dash of humor from Bond ultimately driving a car that’s been sliced in half to comically hanging off the back end of a fire engine in San Francisco, I don’t mind them. They are well done, and just added to the entertainment value of the film. These moments never become ridiculous, thankfully. The closest we get is during the pre-credits sequences where Bond begins snowboarding down a mountain, and the Beach Boys’ “California Girls” begins to play. It certainly could rub you the wrong way, but I was able to roll with it. Once you grasp the tone of the film, and come to accept it, you shouldn’t have a problem with these quirks.
That tone is mostly focused on the dramatic aspects and implications of the plot, but it’s a film that is able to have some fun with itself, when appropriate. It maintains a serious threat level with Zorin’s plans, and the film flows very nicely. Like most Bond films, it makes the most of its runtime keeping everything focused on the plot, and moving it forward in very efficient and smart ways. It doesn’t have as much dramatic weight as some of my favorite Bond films do. Instead, it does try to maintain some levity throughout, but balances everything very well. It never goes too far in one direction or another, but never really excels in either direction.
The plot is pretty standard with some megalomaniac wanting to destroy in order to benefit his own greed. It is nice that it’s actually a corporate mogul at the head of this scheme, wanting to dominate industry instead of dominating the world. So, it has a somewhat more believable approach, but still has its unique Bond quirks which make the characters entertaining and the film nicely exciting. I wouldn’t classify A View To A Kill as any adrenalin rush, but again, it has its fair share of danger and action which properly support the story. The climax on the Golden Gate bridge has some fantastic visuals which I’m sure there must have been some optical effects work done, but the shots were entirely seamless to my eyes. The action is definitely suspenseful as Bond hangs perilously from high atop the bridge, fending off Zorin’s attacks. Ultimately, it’s an explosive finale that is quite satisfying, and tops the film off spectacularly.
Christopher Walken’s Max Zorin is an all right villain. He’s certainly better than some of the misconceived ones I experienced in the Pierce Brosnan era, but Walken’s performance is pretty lightweight when compared to many of his later, more prominent roles. Being familiar with Walken’s string of heavies from King of New York, Batman Returns, True Romance, The Prophecy, and Suicide Kings, I anticipated something much more impressive here. I had wanted to see A View To A Kill since the VHS rental era because Walken was the villain, and so, there was some anticipation to see him really deliver something meaty as Zorin. His performance is certainly not substandard, but it’s not as fascinating or intimidating as I had hoped. In the least, it’s obvious that Walken was having a lot of fun on this movie resulting in a villain who is entertaining to watch. There is plenty of charisma flowing out of Christopher Walken here. I do think the blonde hair was a nice touch which gave Walken’s appearance a little more distinctiveness.
Tanya Roberts is a fairly decent Bond girl as Stacey Sutton. There’s not much substance for her to dig into, and thus, her performance is also a little lightweight. She plays well off of Roger Moore, but I’m sure the obvious twenty-eight year age difference between them might not work so well for some viewers. Despite that, Roberts and Moore have fine chemistry that I feel is effective, and helps enhance the peril they fall into together. I could honestly feel the genuine feelings between the characters in those moments. Tanya Roberts is also quite gorgeous and charming, making her welcoming to look at.
Quite interesting is Grace Jones as the henchwoman May Day. I think she complements Walken very well. They seem like a peculiar couple with a shared mind for villainy. They definitely have a solid, natural chemistry that puts them on an equal footing. May Day rarely feels like a subordinate, but someone Zorin respects quite a bit, to a point. Jones showcases some very good physicality, likely doing most if not all of her own stunts. She proves to be a unique villain with an original fashion sense, but the film has her take a turn when Zorin leaves her to die in a mine explosion. It does rob the audience of an appropriate comeuppance, but it can be nice to see a villain change sides. She at least has a solid farewell scene.
Overall, I find A View To A Kill to be a generally enjoyable Bond film. As I said, I’m sure Roger Moore had far stronger outings, in both performance and story, but this really doesn’t deserve the scorn it was originally met with. It’s a fun adventure with plenty of wit and charm, but not much else to speak of. Yes, it was time for Moore to bow out for a younger actor to revitalize the franchise, and maybe it’s not the swan song Sir Roger Moore would have preferred. Despite that, A View To A Kill is a very competently made film that is very expertly shot with a fine score and entertaining action. It maintains enough integrity for the series and the characters to be respectable. It wasn’t an ambitious entry in the franchise, but there’s nothing at all wrong with that. For me, it was an enjoyable ride that opened the door to possibly check out earlier James Bond films starring Roger Moore, but as 007 Week moves forward, so do the reviews. With that said, James Bond will return in The Living Daylights.
There are countless interpretations of vampires out there. Whether it is from Bram Stoker, Anne Rice, John Carpenter, or Joss Whedon – vampires will continue to be explored in literature, films, and television. What Anne Rice has presented the world is a very classical, romantic, and aristocratic view of nosferatu. It seems that many may have soured to this interpretation in recent years, at least in the filmed media. With films like The Lost Boys, Fright Night, John Carpenter’s Vampires, and the television series of Angel and Buffy The Vampire Slayer integrating vampires into a modern setting with pop culture references and humor. Still, Anne Rice’s view will likely remain the most traditional perception.
Louis de Pointe du Lac (Brad Pitt) has chosen to grant an interview to a persistent reporter in Daniel Malloy (Christian Slater) in present day San Francisco, California. Louis is, in fact, a vampire. This easily takes Daniel by surprise, and is even more shocked to learn it is true. Louis tells the tale of his life in darkness, as a vampire. After the death of his wife and child in the year 1791, life lost its meaning for him, and he welcomed death at every turn. Although, it would never come until he met Lestat (Tom Cruise), who offered him a new life where pain, death, and disease would no longer be a burden to him. Still, he would have no idea the endless agony that would await him. Louis spins the tale of two hundred years from Louisiana to Paris and beyond. Encountering others of his kind, leaving a trail of blood, pain, sorrow, and death behind him. It is a compelling and enthralling story which has many twists and some surprises.
There’s so much to praise about this film. Director Neil Jordan gives us a beautiful sense of time and place. With so much of this film being a period piece extending from the late eighteenth century to the present day, that is the most critical element in this film. The landscapes are indeed gorgeous with a rich depth and a textured history. The production designs and values are impressive and masterful. This is award winning work. I don’t think I really have the words to express how spectacular, epic, and grand it all is. Philippe Rousselot’s cinematography compliments it all greatly and beautifully. I have never seen anything else from Jordan, but I know that this film shows an immense breadth of artistry that I’m sure transcends into his other films. Though, elegance is essentially the one word to describe this film. Every second is filled with it from Elliot Goldenthal’s classical score to the performance of the actors.
Brad Pitt is sympathetic as a tortured man condemned to endure it all forever. As a vampire, who knows for certain if he has a soul (again, depends on your chosen interpretation of them), but it becomes hard to dispute that Louis does. He so tries to fight against his nature, to be a decent person, and thus, eventually finds nothing but agony from this eternity. He does not seek death – he could easily step into the daylight and let himself fry – but some form of peace and solitude from eternal damnation. Pitt portrays and emotes all of this to a tragic degree, but by the late twentieth century, he seems to have come to terms with most everything.
The flip side of this comes from Tom Cruise. His Lestat finds nothing but pleasure and wonder in his reign as a vampire. He is somewhat reminiscent of Julian Sands in Warlock – someone with a high sense of elegance and charm, but underneath this gentle facade is pure, delicious, sadistic evil. Although, Lestat is far more naturally cultured and arrogant. Up until this film, Tom Cruise had been the young heartthrob leading man with the million dollar smile. He was the hero, the nice guy. Here, he shows us his dark side, a striking performance that showed the world he had a talent no one imagined he had. Cruise wouldn’t step into another dark, let alone villainous role for another nine years in Michael Mann’s Collateral as the sociopathic contract killer Vincent. As Lestat, he shines with ease, and enjoys every magnificent moment of it. Kirsten Dunst won several awards for her portrayal of the girl who would be eternally young by way of the blood of a vampire. Those awards were well deserved, and easily launched her young career forward starring in dozens of films in the subsequent years.
The story eventually moves forward to Paris where new characters come into play. Stephen Rea portrays Santiago as a very playful, mischievous, but still sadistic creature of the night. It’s a fun performance, giving the film a different spark of life when it really needs it. After the departure of Lestat from the story, these new personalities are quite welcomed. Antonio Banderas, as always, is marvelous. As Armand, he carries much weight about him, and has a powerful presence and allure. He easily becomes the main antagonist at this point in the film. He is more directly evil and seductive than Lestat. Outside the view of the public, he makes no allusions to being anything but what he truly is. Louis calls he and his minions monsters, and that is indeed true. The final talent to mention is Christian Slater. While his role is minimal, it is well played with an apprehension and fear. The late River Phoenix was originally chosen to play this role, but when he met an untimely and tragic death, Slater stepped in to deliver a solid performance.
Louis’ story is filled with much emotional richness with so much tragedy, love, heartbreak, and pathos. It surely has a different quality to something like Highlander where immortals are still human, can still do most things any other person can, but simply have to live for centuries on end enduring life on a larger canvas of time. Here, Louis is tortured because he has become something ungodly and so against his nature. He’s a man who comes to realize that he only traded one kind of pain for another, and now, must live with it for eternity. It’s a journey that might be a little romanticized, but it is mostly sorrowful and somber. His story is populated with rich, fascinating characters in a wide, sprawling, gorgeous world.
Overall, I must say that this is a remarkable film. It is wonderfully constructed. Everything blends and weaves together in an enrapturing narrative. The editing remains wholly coherent and competent. You never got lost in the timeline of events, or in the few flashes from the present to the past. Anne Rice adapted her own novel for the film, and while I know nothing to the novel itself, I surely get the feeling that it is faithful from how much care clearly went into the film. The film also definitely has its share of scares and frightening moments while gore is kept to a respectable minimum, but showcases some wonderful makeup work. The movie concludes with a Guns N’ Roses cover of The Rolling Stones’ “Sympathy For The Devil,” which I find very appropriate. The lyrics of the song are very much akin to Lestat and those like him in the film. Many never liked this cover deeming it tacky, but I truly enjoy it. It was the last thing recorded with anything resembling the classic line-up of the band. However, as far as the film goes, it was critically and commercially successful. I have no qualms about it, and give it a perfect score! While it might not be every horror fans’ taste, this is an extremely well made film showcasing an abundance of talent in every frame from everyone involved. It gets my highest recommendation.