User Reviews

Greetings again from the darkness. The film is based on the original screenplay by Theodor Holman and a 1993 version directed by Vincent Van Gogh distant relative Theo Van Gogh, who was shot and killed in Amsterdam. Theo Van Gogh, a renowned journalist, once said "I prefer covering the war between a woman and a man." With this remake, director and actor Steve Buscemi does a wonderful job of doing just that.

The set-up is simple enough. Buscemi plays a political journalist whose editor believes has lost his edge and is now assigning him fluff pieces. Enter the fluff piece ... a beautiful actress who is known more for her off screen "romances" than on screen talent. Sienna Miller plays the actress Katya and delivers an outstanding performance; by far, the best of her career. She is all over the place with the role, but stays focused on the internal torment and remarkable people smarts that Buscemi's Pierre is lacking.

Along the lines of "My Dinner with Andre" and "Before Sunset", there is an enormous amount of dialogue and interaction between the two leads, who are on screen 95% of the time. Quite a statement in human nature's preponderance to pre-judge others, this is like peeling back the layers of an onion as each character uncovers a bit more about the other over alcohol, screaming and tender moments. Of course, the whole time the viewer is skeptical about which stories are real and which are fabricated or embellished for the purpose of the moment.

Really an interesting film and directed with a nice touch by Buscemi, who is also at his usual high level of acting. Don't miss the quick glimpse of the real life Dutch star Katja Schuurman, who was in the Van Gogh version of the film. She is the lady who steps from the limo and greets Buscemi's character. A must see for those who love the structure of scenes with dialogue rather than special effects. And remember, there is always a winner and a loser.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Interview proves itself an actor's dream. Co-written and directed by Steve Buscemi, the film is an insightful, at times intense exploration of the nature of celebrity, as experienced by a world-wearied, overly cocksure political journalist who'd do well not to underestimate his beautiful interviewee.

Buscemi is Pierre, the flailing reporter who begrudgingly finds himself waiting to interview Katya (Sienna Miller), the latest in a long line of flash-in-the-pan Hollywood It Girls. As played by Miller, Katya is a charming, supercilious, seductive, wild-tempered, pouting, screaming enigma, proving much more densely layered than the Paris Hilton clone who first presents herself to Pierre at the restaurant an hour late, tiny handbag yapping with the sound of a miniature dog mobile ringtone. While it's clear the uninterested and impolite Pierre initially cares very little for his subject, a strange relationship begins to emerge between the unlikely pair as the evening takes a turn for the unexpected, with an injured Pierre invited back to Katya's spacious loft. Once here, moods swing violently, old wounds re-open and skeletons emerge from closets, an uneasy air of sexual tension underscoring the proceedings.

Buscemi is certainly an excellent director of actors, himself not only in fine, sharply skewed form, but also earning from Miller possibly her best performance to date. This is literally a two-character piece, and thanks to the powers of both actors, Interview remains in constant command of our attention. If there's one complaint, it's that the film at times feels overly stagey, but this is a small grievance when weighed against the superior performances on show. The hand-held digital camera-work ably services a voyeuristic plot, and the script crackles with caustic repartee.

The remake of a film by murdered Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gough, Interview is a tight, engaging drama with a thick nasty streak and an acutely barbed final act. It's a fine showcase for both Buscemi the actor and the filmmaker, and promises excellent things to come from Miller.

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)

"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.

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

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.

This is a solid effort by Steve Buscemi and his co-star Sienna Miller. It would do well as a 2 character play on the 99 equity circuit. Buscemi lays good ground work in developing his character early, while Miller shows her stuff gradually. I found them both believable and not typical Hollywood movies fakes. The things that happened to them seemed real, and the writing was solid. I was impressed by Millers effort, she showed the person and the emotion behind her character. Buscemi took the time to let the audience gradually learn the people behind the show-biz mask. I cared about both people which is my fundamental requirement for any art form. I get pleasure from real professionals doing a god workmanlike job. Kudos to both!!

Interview, a remake of the Theo Van Gogh film from a few years back, is a taut tightrope act between two characters who can't stand one another and seem somehow fascinated all the same. Whether or not that fascination, or even that resentment, is genuine is also part of the sort of guessing game; is she really giving out who her real self, or is she actually mopey? The dialog is revelatory though, the kind that makes for great theater, where we're given two characters and a whole bottle of neuroses poured out into a one-night thicket, which is probably a convention too at this point with theater. But Buscemi makes it compelling cinema, for the bulk of it, before it starts to reel into the realm of the twisty-psychological guessing game- final twist included- that should seem natural but feels a little more of a contrivance. You really can't stand these people (or actually Miller's character), but you never want to look away from what they'll do next.

It's about a political journalist (Buscemi) assigned to a "fluff piece", begrudgingly, with a hot young starlet of B-movies and TV (Miller), and after a bad dinner interview, or would-be interview, and a bad knock on the head in a taxi cab as Buscemi is leaving the restaurant, she invites him up to her place to clean his wound and suddenly the interview starts up again. Curiosity, coy word games, and the search for some kind of truth- about work, love, oneself with drugs, and the little dark secrets that come out of nowhere, take up what is 3/4 of the film's running time in the loft. One might wonder why this film needed to be because of Van Gogh's original film from years before (which, by the way, had the actors playing their characters with the same names, and as a real serious actor playing against a real TV star).

But Buscemi, as writer, director, and actor, is never one to stop his form of weird fascination too. He's such a strong presence in Interview because he remains the 'voice-of-reason' even as his character drinks and drinks and tells a tragic story that didn't really happen like it was told. And Miller gets the juicy mind-f*** role, where she can go between all the roles that an actress goes through in melodrama while peeling past the layers to show, well, even more layers. By the end we probably don't know her any better than when she sat down for a drink at the restaurant, except perhaps that she loves getting into character and messing with someone who has no idea who she is, in work and in life.

When Interview is at its best, it combines fine performances with a beat after beat of dialog that does a double-cross: it's playfully self-aware of the situation, but at the same time the two characters go for truths about one another that take people sometimes years to get at in 'real' relationships. That it's "game"-ness almost leads it into feeling like an indie-movie lark goes without saying; it's small, compact, and with enough to say in 82 minutes without overstaying its real-time welcome.

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.

This movie is entertaining just by the performances of Steve Buscemi and Sienna Miller despite its silly screenplay.

I have to say that I liked the movie despite it was bad written, and I think the reason is because Steve Buscemi is a very good actor and Sienna Miller is likable in here, even though they play 2 characters who spend a night together in a very unrealistic situation acting in a very estrange way.

Pierre Peders is a former political journalist now making interviews to the show business people thing which he doesn't like at all. One evening very strange things will happen to him when he interviews Katya a movie and TV actress ....

6.5 stars = regular +

I was invited to this movie's screening after meeting Steve Buscemi on a flight from Chicago. I was impressed to say the least. The movie is about two people who when they meet, think they come from two totally different worlds but come to find that they have more in common then they first suspected. The acting is amazing from both the actor and actress. Also the portrayal of human nature is accurate and how great or poor one's character/morals can be is awesome. To quote Steve: "It's a character driven movie that makes you ask questions." There was a good balance of comedy and drama with an attention to detail. It'll suck you in from beginning to the surprising end.

The premise here is that Steve Buscemi is a washed-up political reporter who is assigned to interview a tabloid-fodder actress known for her direct-to-video horror movie sequels (played by Sienna Miller). Neither one of them wants to do the interview but they wind up spending the entire evening together and (maybe) revealing a bit of the real person behind their defenses. The whole thing is a little contrived -- it's the sort of piece where both characters spend the first half complaining about how much they dislike the other, but neither one is willing to leave or ask the other to -- but the snappy patter and excellent performances sucked me in and I happily went along for the ride. Of course Buscemi is great, but Miller was surprisingly good as well, digging into the part of a sex symbol who isn't taken seriously with a lot of enthusiasm and self-confidence.

INTERVIEW is such a timely film for the "celebrity" hungry world of today in journalism with the need to grasp "each and every morsel" of information about a celebrity that will sell magazines or newspapers. And Sienna Miller is tremendous in her role of Katya, a young "with it" actress who lets it all hang out and then she encounters an INTERVIEW like no other. Steve Buscemi and Miller light up the screen with an intensity and dialog that is ripping, angry and very much reflects what is happening at this moment of time on wanting to nail the perfect story.

However, the twist at the end of the film is a wonderful scene and once again, Sienna Miller is at the top of her game in handling "the lies we tell each other" photographed in the glamorous loft settings of New York. What a powerful film and such chemistry between two great actors, Buscemi and Miller. So, will there be another INTERVIEW, or is this the final one?? Only Katya can answer that question.

very few creative minds can develop a movie that is essentially about nothing but the build up and story line of the characters in this day and age and have it be successful. then again some have made it there calling and famous like such genius as that off seinfeld or larry David. but that is a comedics aspect and doesn't really follow the same rules as a drama major motion picture. of course larry David has brought us one title being Sour Grapes which is one of my favorite underground low budget comedys. anyways to get to the point bescumi captures the eyes and ears of a fair portion of the population of movie goers in this film. anyone who hasn't undergone any sort of family or emotional pain in the entire life would find it hard not to relate to these characters right from the starting point. it is essentially a film shot on 1 location similar to movies like phone booth. and while that lacked story and cinematography from a blockbuster action buffs stand point, in Interview you can't help but relate to these individuals who are both on similar levels as human beings despite the fact they each live on opposite sides of the spectrum. one being a celebrity one being a journalist. and as much as the film is uneventful i found it rather amusing and couldn't help but be entertained at the intellectual level of conversation that carry's the film and be curious as to how each line of conversation and sexual anticipation would ensue. i <3 sienna miller.

When Pierre sits down and tells Katya that he hasn't seen any of her films and that he usually does journalism related with politics, the actress is a little disappointed. She is a sensation; beautiful woman with a TV show and some B-Movies but truly better known because of the people she sleeps with and her sex scandals…Kind of like Sienna Miller, and Sienna Miller plays her.

After a brief discussion and other events, a talk in a restaurant becomes a talk in Katya's apartment, and a long one. Now "Interview" begins, which covers a conversation that is everything but what the title declares. And when I say everything, I mean just about everything that can occur in an hour and twenty minutes.

"Interview", directed and starred by Steve Buscemi, at first seems something like "Out of sight", where opposite attract, but then it turns into something like "Tape", where we experience various plot turns in a little space in a short amount time. However, in the end this film is not like "Tape" either, although it has similarities I'll explain later.

First, the differences. "Tape" is a movie about a relationship; "Interview" is a movie about relationships, in general. "Tape" puts everything in the table with honesty; "Interview's" characters seem to be hiding things all the time and at one point the movie becomes a deception game, a competition where the more intelligent wins.

Don't get confused, there's also a relationship in the movie; a relationship of two opposites filled with sexual tension, but sex goes into a second level of importance. It's surpassed by words that make the movie about general relationships. In other words, we are captivated by the sexual tension but not as much as by what the characters say and discuss. We are blinded by their changes of moods in a piece that's also slower than the unstopping "Tape".

Also, it's more difficult with two than with three. Buscemi's direction here places the acting as the main factor. He is 'that' actor who is always there but we don't always recall. Well, you won't forget about him after watching his work here: you won't forget his face, his temperament and his naturalness: he's a real person.

And Sienna Miller is another story. I'm sure every review about this film contains the comparison I made above, but I personally believe that it takes an actress of great courage, personality and talent to take on a role like Katya's considering her situation. It's not superficial because Miller really has a reputation, but if you ask me I'll tell you her performance here is fantastic, full of ever changing sadness and joy, a lovable smile that will make you fall in love and a perfect American accent.

If something is similar to "Tape" here, is the challenging photography and editing work. This is a remake, and the same crew who worked for the original film in Holland went to the States to work with Buscemi. Theo Van Gogh, the director of the original and inspiration for this project, developed a shooting system with three digital cameras at the same time. Cinematographer Thomas Kist took care of that and Kate Williams edited it. Great job.

Considering "Interview" as the deceitful game it is, I'll ask you one question, and think about it because it may not be as easy as it sounds: Who is better at deceiving? An actress or a journalist?

..slowely becomes contrived and repetitive.

The concept of this movie is an old one. I'm not sure which movie was the first to bring it to the silver screen, but as recent as 2006 we had 'Five Fingers' with Laurance Fishburn which, like this movie, doesn't exactly pull it off.

The one that most definitely does pull it off is of course 'The Interview' from 1998 with that other Matrix icon: Hugo Weaving. I've never seen the original Dutch version by van Gogh, nor do I wish to. Watching a Dutch person trying to act is like watching a bad TV commercial trying to to be artistic.

Steve Buscemi is a wonderful actor and proved with this film that he can also write. The trouble with the movie is that near the end it loses focus too much, there are too many illogical scenes and we already know what is about to happen.

I personally like my movies with at least a satisfying ending. And although the performances were quite strong, the movie could have been much better if they had worked on the ending a tad more. It felt like they got tired after writing the first 3/4 of it and then just gave the rest a good once over.

Too bad, 6/10

Either over edited or poorly written from the start, leaving a really pointless story that is an entertaining enough cat and mouse game to get your attention, but takes it nowhere.

Both Buscemi and Miller do great jobs acting, and it would be fair to say Buscemi did a great job directing. But the story...

Unless the point of the story is that actresses and journalists think more clearly and sharply as they drink, smoke, and snort more, there is no point. The only other possibility is to provide an extended product placement piece for odd cigarette lighters.

So I'm guessing that there was an assumption made somewhere that should have been explicit and developed in the film or a key part got edited out post-production.

I think, the movie is all about revenge. A simple interview turns out to be a war of minds and egos. In the end, we know all the deepest secrets of the interviewer, and absolutely nothing about the star. Sienna Miller disguises herself very successfully and misleads Buscemi, making him reveal himself; lose his cocksure appearance and his fake credentials. Surprisingly she does all these with honesty and her honesty beats up the hypocrisy of the other. It makes you keep watching and does not let you lose track of the dialog's in spite of the one shot in one room. Good dialogs, good acting, good movie. Do not play the game with someone who can play better.

A journalist of international politics is sent to interview a sexy soap opera star, but the situation heads in a wrong direction from the beginning. The interview turns into a furious battle of wills and a complementary spiral of deceits.

Bogus, stereotyped, downright repulsive. "Interview" is pure agony to watch as the narrative progresses without any credibility while the dialogue is making you wince in all its pretentiousness. This is truly like watching a bad soap opera. Nevertheless, thanks partly to some intriguing "acting of acting" by Buscemi and especially Miller, between the lines the film succeeds in discussing its problematic theme: the relation between a journalist and an actor, in which information and truth become tradeable goods and instruments of power. At its best, "Interview" manages to widen its scope even to a deeper social commentary about the impossibility of commodified social relations. In a mediated society of spectacle, all human relations become nothing more than acted roles, and a genuine contact can no longer be attained.

Despite the interesting - even if extremely pessimistic - argument, "Interview" suffers too much from empty, meaningless and stagnant dialogue. The essentially trivial questions of 'who betrays whom' and 'what is the "truth" about the characters' grow into excessively important motives for the narrative that quickly starts to repeat itself. The result is an unpleasant and contradictory watching experience. In the end, "Interview" is hard to like in spite of some serious effort.