Yep, the director alludes to it in the commentary; and then there’s an interview I read with her about the film; she said that she publicly refused to be attached to it when she heard the casting, but then saw the test reel and redacted everything she said. But she still thought the ending was, I forget her exact words, something along the lines of “a pulp horror ending” or something like that.

I don’t remember anything about how she felt about movie!IWTV’s ending, but yeah, there was a whole thing about the Cruise casting, and she certainly changed her tune.

AR’s actual words re: Tom here: http://www.angelfire.com/ri/cerat/AnneOnTom.html

She went from:

“The Tom Criuse casting is just so bizarre, it’s almost impossible to imagine how it’s going to work, and it’s really almost impossible to imagine how Neil, David and Tom could have come up with it.  I have one question: Does Tom Criuse have any idea of what he’s getting into?  I’m not sure he does.  I’m not sure he’s read any of the books other than the first one, and his comments on TV that he wanted to do something scary and he loved “creature features” as a kid, well, that didn’t make me feel any better.  I do think Tom Cruise is a fine actor. [But] you have to know what you can do and what you can’t do.“
– an interview  with Martha Frankel, published in Movieline (Jan/Feb 1994)

To:

“ON TOM CRUISE: From the moment he appeared Tom was Lestat for me. He has the immense physical and moral presence; he was defiant and yet never without conscience; he was beautiful beyond description  yet compelled to do cruel things. The sheer beauty of Tom was dazzling, but the polish of his acting, his flawless plunge into the Lestat persona, his ability to speak rather boldly poetic lines, and speak them with seeming ease and conviction were exhilarating and uplifting. The guy is great.

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.