Mjeteconer Just perfect...

TaryBiggBall It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

Keeley Coleman The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

rooprect In case you're wondering, this story was not written by "the" Theo Van Gogh (brother of the famous Dutch painter) but his great-grandson who wrote and directed the original "Interview" in 2003 a year before he was shot, stabbed & partially decapitated by a ticked off Muslim extremist who didn't like his movies.The only reason I'm mentioning this is to illustrate that Theo Van Gogh's films certainly had an effect on people. I haven't seen the original Dutch "Interview", but based on the story re-told here I see the kind of biting wit & satirical finger-pointing that packs a punch. While I seriously doubt anybody will get assassinated over this film, I'm sure it may (good naturedly) ruffle a few feathers in the world of self-important journalism and Hollywood tabloid reporting.Steve Buscemi plays an arrogant political journalist who is sent on a fluff assignment to interview a soap opera/B-movie celebrity (Sienna Miller). He's rude from the outset, but due to his grandfatherly appearance and self-deprecating, sarcastic wit he has a certain charm that's fun to watch. He's a character we love to hate, and that's what makes this film work.Sienna Miller is well cast as the starlet known for her love affairs & bust size more than her talent. But she's shown to be intelligent and good natured, so again we quickly become attached to her character even though she is a Hollywood cliché.What follows, in a very minimalistic, stage like show, is the torrid volley of love-hate banter between these two egos, each seeking to dominate the other. If you like the characters, then you're set for a fun and sometimes suspenseful ride. If you don't like them, well then I can see you becoming bored or annoyed.Really, though, who doesn't like Steve Buscemi & Sienna Miller? Here they have an interesting chemistry, at times father-daughter, at times more like bickering exes. And always one is trying to one-up the other. In the second half they raise the stakes, building momentum to a big finale which I found very satisfying.If you're a fan of plays or films made from plays, particularly ones where characters love to antagonize each other like "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" (1966) or "A Streetcar Named Desire" (1951), with a somewhat claustrophobic 1-on-1 presentation, then give this playful movie a shot.

random_avenger A contemptuous political journalist Pierre Peders (Steve Buscemi) is assigned to interview a soap opera star Katya (Sienna Miller), much to his annoyance. After a brief and unsuccessful chat in a restaurant, they decide to call it a day but due to an incident on the street, Katya invites Pierre to her loft apartment and they end up talking all night. Both have troubled pasts and there's plenty to discuss, but the tone of the conversation keeps changing. Moments of sincerity and sneering sarcasm take turns – is there a seed of friendship to be found in the end or is it all just a mocking joke?The style of the film is kept close to reality with hand-held cameras but the story doesn't come across as completely convincing. Maybe the point is to examine the nature of conversation with two people who are no strangers to twisting the truth to achieve their own goals, but the constant sneering makes it hard to get truly engaged in the characters' lives. This must have been intentional though, as in the end the film paints quite a cruel picture about human relations and the unreliability of people.Besides the two stars, there are few characters in the film and most of the story takes place in one apartment only. Both Buscemi and Miller play their roles with understated charm and especially the former is very good in his role, as always. Even though Interview is not among my favourite conversation films, Buscemi alone makes it worth seeing for friends of dialogue-driven character dramas. I also recommend it to fans of movies about reporters and the ethics of journalism.

r0cko723 I am a fan of Steve Buscemi. He is the real deal as an actor and as a director. He has done elite work as a performer and as an artist. Everyone fails somewhere, in some endeavor. Not a big deal. We all fail with some regularity in our lives -- at least, those of us who are human. So, this is a somewhat clumsy apology for the failure of "Interview." Here's the thing. It sucked. It sucked so badly I was knocked back on the couch, even if said collapse could be attributed to the four Budweiser American Ales (new brand) and three vodka Collins drinks I downed in order to be able to get through an hour and five minutes of the film. I will admit to being too weak to make my way through the rest. I had to turn it off, out of respect to Steve. I am not even close to being ready to concede that Buscemi has regressed as a director -- say, from "Trees Lounge" in 1996 to "Interview" more than a decade later. "Lounge" was the real deal, believable even if incredible in a few spots. What made it credible? I don't know for sure, but it stayed true to its turf. In "Trees Lounge," Buscemi's character gets to make out with Debi Mazar's hot and inebriated character. "No way!" you say? I say, "Way!" It's all about the setting, environment, and setup. I could very well buy that happening at Trees Lounge. Raise your hands, all who are chronic alcoholics. I see out there . . . not many hands, but a few. I have my hand raised. I am a long-time drunk and failure. I feel this gives me a modicum of "credential" in assessing films that leverage the motifs of drunkenness, addiction, and failure. -- But of course, that is delusional. Just because I am a f*&kup does not mean I have any ability to assess a work about f*&^ups. But forgive me. I digress. What makes "Interview" so bad is the contrived circumstances that are twisted in shape to enable the plot device of having a somewhat geeky journalist get in bed with a paparazzi wet dream diva. There are many bad devices that should have been edited before going full tilt with this one. Look, diva stars don't do B movie schlock. They don't do B horror movies. They do manufactured crap romance pieces. If they aren't pop superstars out of the gate or genuine teen stars that get great coverage with films like, I don't know, "Mean Girls" for instance, then they remain B movie actresses and never achieve celebrity. This movie got the sequence of events wrong in the "celebritization" of the object of the interview. Beyond that, the dialogue was so contrived and artificial as to be painful. I am not sure if the shortcoming should be attributed to the delivery of the actors or to the script, but the banter was not credible. The circumstances were not credible, and the movement toward increased intimacy of the two leads was not credible. Now, maybe it could have been credible. . . . But it wasn't credible as presented. It really failed, really badly. The babe lead would not have gotten into the male lead, given the setup. And even if we allow for the intervening set of circumstances that re-united them, . . . I'm sorry. This thing devolved into really bad meta-melodrama. Hey, if you don't agree, feel free to attribute it to my progressive loss of sensibilities due to advancing age, substance abuse, and life. If you want to see what Steve can do as a director, see "Trees Lounge." Okay. I am still a confirmed Buscemi fan and I love him. Just burn that copy of "Interview." Peace. Out.

harriet-veale Wow. This film is seriously addictive and I am completely surprised that I had not really heard about it. It is fast-paced, witty, sexy, gripping and utterly intense! The script is incredible and spot-on; every single word is the perfect choice for the two characters, Pierre (Buscemi) and Katya (Miller). You really don't want it to end!It is primarily set in one room with just the two characters and there couldn't have been a better way for it to have been done; you are entirely focused on those people and their feelings and how they react to each other. That and the use of the Dutch camera techniques, particularly the three camera technique means that the two actors are always on screen together, makes this movie about four hundred times more intense. In 'Interview' Steve Buscemi shows himself to be a very very skilled director as well as a wonderful actor. He knows exactly how to manipulate the feelings of the viewers so one minute you are crying and the next minute you are shouting obscenities at the screen making this film even more of an exhilarating journey. The sexual tension between Buscemi and Miller is at the perfect level to give this film a great balance between the emotional and physical connection. Every word the actors speak is delivered with a certain precision not often seen nowadays in modern films. They work perfectly together and completely embody their characters.I would recommend this film without hesitation to anyone. You must see it! And having, discovered that it was originally a set of three films I shall certainly be off to find the other two if this one sets any standard for the style.