robert-temple-1 This remarkable film directed by the talented Steve Buscemi, is something of a tour de force. It is essentially a two-hander starring himself and Sienna Miller, then aged 26. Pulling off a two-hander which lasts as long as a feature film takes a great deal of talent and ingenuity, and there are few occasions when anything like this has occurred successfully. I would say that this film largely succeeds, therefore, at the impossible. It keeps us watching two people for 84 minutes. Try doing that in real life, much less on the screen. I can't imagine how Buscemi ever raised the money to make this risky film. He must have called in all his chips. Anyone with two eyes in his head can see that he pulled it off on screen and got lots of plaudits, but I doubt whether it ever earned its costs back. Presumably he worked for nothing and Sienna took a low fee. But even then, there's a crew to pay. How did they do it? We'll never know. But it was a foolhardy enterprise well worth undertaking. At least they can all feel good about themselves, and those few of us who have seen the result think all the better of them for it. I never really thought of Steve Buscemi as a serious figure before I saw this, because he often plays goofy guys in films and he never came to the fore in my consciousness (what little consciousness I may have). He always seemed to be hanging around as a supporting player in things, but you know, I am more interested in actresses, aren't I? But that brings me to Sienna Miller. I used to meet her and her sister when they were children and they were very polite, interesting, and pleasant kids. It also seemed obvious to me that Sienna had something special about her. But who thinks a kid is going to become a movie star? And yet sometimes they do. That was in the days when I was friends with her exasperating father, a friendship which ended badly. (I never met her mother, as by then the girls had one of their stepmothers.) So angry was I with Ed Miller, for good reason, that for a long time I refused to watch any movies with his daughter in them. However, due to my fondness for Terence Rattigan, I went along to the Old Vic to see one of his plays and there was little Sienna, now a big smiling girl with a huge personality, dominating the stage with plenty of charm and talent, and I thought: 'I've had this girl figured all wrong. She may be the daughter of Ed Miller, but what the hell, she's not him, she's her, and she's really got it and I must not hold anything against her.' So I broke down and watched one of her movies, and this was the one. I rush to confess that she is a really impressive person, chock full of talent and oomph, and long may she take part in Interviews, and I hope she gets stacks of Oscars, which doubtless she will do sometime if she keeps on like this. But let's not forget she is also dynamite on the stage, and I would say even more so than on screen, and that is saying something.

Tom Ross "It's interesting because this film is about hurting each other. I believe you can't hurt somebody you don't care about and you can't be hurt by somebody you don't care about." Steve BuscemiThe Dogme 95-esque filming manner of Interview, a remake of a 2003 Dutch film by Theo van Gogh, draws on the bare elements that films require; actors and recording equipment. The film is set majorily in Katya's loft, and as the fly-on-the-wall bystander in the open-plan apartment, leaving the room without knowing a conclusion to the situation is bottom of any voyeur's to-do list.Baring in mind that mainstream films often rely on spectacular scenery, extraordinary events or one-man-can-change-the-world approaches, it is thoroughly encouraging to occasionally spend a close hour and a half with only two character, and not be able to decide who is good or evil. Much like the time we spent with Jeffries in Rear Window, or the sales team in Glengarry Glenn Ross, the characters confide copious amounts of past histories which the audience have no license to be knowledgeable of.A physical scar catalyses the movie into a deep intricate account of their personal inner lives. The war and political journalist shares tales of his compelling past with close relatives; his brother's suicide attempt, his ex-wife's death, and his daughter's heroin overdose. Equally, Katya has a larger than life history, a drug habit, smoking endless cigarettes and an untruthful relationship with her boyfriend. Although the film does take two extraordinary lives, there is no evidence that anything seen or heard is the truth and could quite easily be Pierre's alcoholism and Katya's cocaine snorting resulting in flamboyant imagination.Like in any script; conflict drives the narrative. There are no explicit goals attempting to be won or achieved, but a greater focus on the struggle to maintain supremacy. Katya's role in society – purely being a stunningly beautiful "actress" – lends herself to being celebrity with little reason for success, obliging Pierre to take superiority on the importance scale. While the film twists and turns its way through personal trauma, the erratic audiences' empathetic emotions fluctuate accordingly. Generally one might align themselves with either Pierre or Katya, but the film will bring the imagined character-spectator relationship into question at some point during is running time, and probably subsequently when the DVD player is switched off.In Interview, we find out a hefty amount more about the interviewer rather than the interviewee. If the journalist undertook his customary research and interview preparation, we would be left with the boringness of another Katie Price interview concerning her latest perfume. The ignorance of each other's toil provides opportunity to enquire into irrelevant issues on both parts, and as sexual tension turns into a familial relationship, sparks fly in all directions.

rzajac I loved this: It had the electricity of that last sequence from Last Tango, and extended it for the duration of the film; the anarchy, the back and forth, the unbridled playfulness.It's a beautifully written, directed, acted, shot and edited theater piece. Check it out for the roller coaster theatrical energy and professionalism; and because of the production values and attention to the demands of the film medium, it works just fine as a movie as well (thankfully!).And, I should add; it was nice to see Buscemi playing something straight for a change. He so often gets cast in "concept" pieces that straightjacket him. It's odd: "Interview" is a concept piece, too: Except that Buscemi is allowed to breathe here, and that's so nice to see. It's nice to be reminded every now and then that he can hold his own in this regard; that he can play a human being.And he really can.

Bill Jordan I rented this because of Steve Buscemi's involvement. Always enjoy his characterizations, and the fact that Sienna Miller is in it as well was not a deterrent (even though I hated her character in "Factory Girl," though perhaps her portrayal was accurate). "Interview" started out well enough, but it eventually tried to be far more clever than it actually was. Much of the situation and reactions that occur make no sense whatsoever, and the ending implies that each character had an elaborate scheme to "get" the other (at least that's what I got out of it). And as far as Pierre's big secret, well, I didn't see how it could be used as a threat at all, which is what Miller's character does with it in the end. So, while quite watchable, this is not a film I'd recommend.