Directed by Steve Buscemi.
Written by David Schechter and Steve Buscemi.
Starring Sienna Miller and Steve Buscemi.
Release Year: ?
Review Date: 1/30/07
Who doesn't love Steve Buscemi? His
new experimental flick "Interview" played here at Sundance and
unfortunately, it is NOT his best work.
Buscemi stars as Pierre Peters, a White
House correspondent who is in New York City to do a fluff piece for
his paper on a celebrity--in fact, one of the world's biggest
celebrities--named Katya (Sienna Miller). Katya, one of the
biggest box-office draws in the world thanks to her looks--and not
her acting abilities--shows up late to her dinner appointment with
Pierre but thanks to a few strokes of bad luck, the twosome hang out
at Katya's downtown loft apartment to conduct the interview and do a
whole lot more over the course of one night.
Based on a Dutch film of the same name,
Buscemi's film is only meant to be a two-star, one-set piece that
explores the variety of ways two people can interact with each
other, and in that respect, "Interview" succeeds from a formatting
standpoint. Too bad what is happening onscreen isn't more
interesting. Miller is very good as the coked-out superstar,
at least in terms of seeming to be an engaging personality; to
undercompensate for this, Buscemi's Pierre is rather droll, a bit
dry and oftentimes not enough to hold the screen with the character
that Miller is playing. For having just two sets (the
restaurant for a few minutes, then the loft), "Interview" seems
spacious thanks to a beautiful set design and Buscemi's ability to
constantly reinvent the space during the film's 80-minute running
time. Sometimes, the script is quite funny; on occasion, the
physical acting of the twosome is also well done in terms of the
ability to generate comedy, passion, drama, whatever is needed.
But, mostly? "Interview" is a bit of a
drag, and not something I would recommend blowing cash on in a
theater unless you are a big Buscemi fan.
Comments? Drop me a line at
Bellview Rating System:
"Opening Weekend": This is
the highest rating a movie can receive. Reserved for movies that
exhibit the highest level of acting, plot, character development,
setting...or Salma Hayek. Not necessarily in that order.
"$X.XX Show": This price
changes each year due to the inflation of movie prices; currently,
it is the $9.50 Show. While not technically perfect, this is a
movie that will still entertain you at a very high level.
"Undercover Brother" falls into this category; it's no "Casablanca",
but you'll have a great time watching. The $9.50 Show won't win any
Oscars, but you'll be quoting lines from the thing for ages (see
"Matinee": An average movie
that merits no more than a $6.50 viewing at your local theater.
Seeing it for less than $9.50 will make you feel a lot better about
yourself. A movie like "Blue Crush" fits this category; you leave
the theater saying "That wasn't too bad...man, did you see that
Lakers game last night?"
"Rental": This rating
indicates a movie that you see in the previews and say to your
friend, "I'll be sure to miss that one." Mostly forgettable, you
couldn't lose too much by going to Hollywood Video and paying $3 to
watch it with your sig other, but you would only do that if the
video store was out of copies of "Ronin." If you can, see this
movie for free. This is what your TV Guide would give "one and a
"Hard Vice": This rating is
the bottom of the barrel. A movie that only six other human beings
have witnessed, this is the worst movie I have ever seen. A Shannon
Tweed "thriller," it is so bad as to be funny during almost every
one of its 84 minutes, and includes the worst ending ever put into a
movie. Marginally worse than "Cabin Boy", "The Avengers" or
"Leonard, Part 6", this rating means that you should avoid this
movie at all costs, or no costs, EVEN IF YOU CAN SEE IT FOR FREE!
(Warning: strong profanity will be used in all reviews of "Hard