Interview

This movie was originally made in Netherlands (2002) by a Dutch Director Theo Van Gogh. As I am staying in Amsterdam, that know-how interested me and on top of that I have a liking for Steve Buscemi (obviously after seeing Fargo).

This is a story of a political journalist Pierre Peters (Steve) who is given a job to interview a B-grade movie celebrity Katya (Sienna Millers). They meet each other at a restaurant, dislike each other instantly, part their ways and immediately bump into each other again to land up in Katya's spacious flat. The remaining story unfolds with each of them trying to outsmart the other by being witty. There is a final twist in the movie that makes the viewers satisfy.

Both the characters are complex, especially of Katya – and I should say that even though Sienna Millers has tried her best and acted well too, still her character remains un-defined and shallow. This is the major slack in the scripting. Steve is wonderful and decent in this role. This is a special kind of cinema – mostly experimental – where the camera revolves around two characters in a room. But obviously Steve would have found the original movie so inspirational that he took the challenge to Amercianise it – with him on the driving seat as Director and Lead Actor.

Good movie, especially if you are of a kind you are a risk-taking movie goer, and open to different kind and genre of cinema.

(Stars: 6.5 out of 10)

Much more interesting and better done than I expected. I'm usually not an advocate for remakes, but when they are done to honor the original film instead of to simply make money I'm all for it. This one does that and more and is the best remake since The Departed. It works for a long list of reason's, most particularly because of the performances. Buscemi is fantastic as a slime ball and always has been. This is one of his better performances of the last couple of years. He relishes in this character, and it shows. He is funny, and disturbing at the same time. Sienna Miller has been becoming a better and better actress over the last year or so. She deserved an Oscar nomination for her performance in the underrated Factory Girl last year, and deserves another one for Interview. She plays a roll similar to herself, or at least her image. Many people say this is easier, but it actually isn't. It is extremely difficult and very emotionally draining. It is rare to find a performance like this that works so well. She is stunning, and deserves better work. The style of the film is interesting. This is thanks to Buscemi's odd, and very experimental direction. Against the odds it works, and elevates the film above just strong acting. Much of the style can also be attributed to the screenplay. The dialogue and characters are expertly drawn. They also are odd, and occasionally stilted, but that's part of why they work so well. It's been a long time since such a stilted and mediocre script worked so perfectly. Even when I say all this though I must say I did have some problems. While I was consistently entertained the "message", if you will, never quite came across. It is a strong one, and should have been paid more attention too. The director of the original film was a strong advocate for free speech, and stood for many wonderful things. He was murdered in 2004 tragically for offending someone with something he said and believed. This film is obviously channeling his beliefs and I just wish it had either forgotten them, or drawn them a little better. However it still works perfectly as an entertainment, which is after all the point of movies.

Remake of Theo Van Gogh's film of the same name. This is the story of a self important reporter forced to do a celebrity interview with an actress "best known for who she sleeps with".

Good but far from deep-despite what the film thinks-sparring between characters is an amusing if at sometimes uncomfortable 85 minutes. The joy here is watching the actors do what the do best. The real joy here is watching Sienna Miller who proves she really can act. After a few borderline roles and a cringe inducing performance (at least in the trailer) in Stardust she proves that she is oh so much better than we are giving her credit for (clearly she really isn't just an actress best known for insulting cities and whom she sleeps with).

If there is any flaws its a couple of odd twists that seem to occur just to have something dramatic happen and to prove what bad people the characters are. Its a minor flaw.

Is it worth seeing? Yes. But I don't know if it really needs to be seen on the big screen

"Interview" is something of an old fashioned two character drama updated to cover questions about just how much of the information we get in today's media saturated world can be trusted.

The plot is simple. News magazine writer Pierre, who in his salad days was a top political reporter, has fallen from grace and is now lucky to pick up celebrity profile interviews. One night in New York he is assigned to interview a beautiful actress known for B movie horror films and highly sexed cable TV fare of the "Sex in the City" variety. Her only real claim to fame seems to be that she underwent a breast reduction operation, getting her implants removed.

Through a fluke what starts off as an interview so disastrous that both want to immediately end it, turns into an all night affair when he bumps his head in a fender bender accident outside the restaurant where they meet. Rather than going their separate ways, they wind up going to her spacious loft where they spend the next few hours bobbing and weaving around each other like a pair of good middle weight boxers. And over the course of the evening, we learn quite a bit about both of them, or so we think.

Steve Buscemi, who also directed, gets good marks for his acting, but even better for his work helming this story. He keeps it moving along with such energy and such conviction that one hardly notices that this is a two character set piece probably better suited to the theater and a small theater at that.

The real revelation for me, though, was Sienna Miller, who I had never seen before and know virtually nothing about. She sparkles as the under appreciated sex symbol who goes along with that game because it has made her rich and famous. But there would appear to be a lot more to her than meets the eye, and luckily for us, she is not played as the clichéd dumb blonde with a heart of gold Hollywood usually trucks out in this kind of story. Miller's character is smart, at times highly manipulative, and more than able to handle herself in a verbal street fight.

Whether in real life any actress, much less any journalist, would reveal their deepest secrets to a total stranger is highly questionable. But then part of the plothere is that we never quite know how much of what they say is the truth, and how much is manufactured. This is very much a story about how the media and celebrities use each other to attain their own ends.

So what we come out with in the end is people who are smarter than they seem, but maybe a little less ethical than we would like them to be. And first and foremost in that category is the journalist, who we come to realize is not only capable of stretching the truth when it suits his needs, but also of betraying confidences if that will further his career.

Miller's character is less easily defined, though, and some of that may be the script's fault, or some of that may be by design. There is a spot near the end of the film in which Miller's character clearly puts the mask back on. She re-establishes the wall between movie star and the member of the press who is there to interview her, nothing more.

What that says is that most of, maybe all of, what happened on this unusual night was an illusion. Was it just the under appreciated actress proving she was much better at her craft than people thought? Was it a girl pigeon holed as a bimbo proving she was just as smart as the condescending intellectual reluctantly interviewing her? We never quite know in the end and that may be "interview's" one failure, because in the end, we really want to like the actress. We're just not sure if we do.

It felt like it was half finished. I expect Buscemi was meant to be the villain of the piece but I ended up feeling far more sympathy for his character than I did for Sienna Miller's protagonist.

Maybe that was intentional but it left me feeling less than satisfied with the ending and at a running time of under 80 minutes, it felt like there could have been a lot more to the story. While I can appreciate films which leave you to fill in the blanks as you see fit - such as the otherwise completely dissimilar "The World According to Garp" - this film felt like it could have benefited from another half hour of story. Perhaps redemption of either character or revenge for/reversal of the trick Miller's character pulls on Buscemi's.

That said it was extremely well written and directed and the performances by both leads were pretty exceptional, hence a high score, but for the dissatisfaction I felt with the ending it would have been an 8 or even 9 out of 10 for me.