It's clearly overrated. Yes, it is technically well made, it feels a strong book base, and dubious roles drew two big actors, but the film is a gay metaphor, besides it contains a huge number of mistakes and assumptions:
- The world in the film is portrayed as if there were no police or investigators. Vampires can kill people in unlimited numbers, and no one is looking for a night maniac. What's that like?
- After 30 years, Claudia noticed that she was not growing. Really?
- She has to explain where and how she became a vampire. But she was 12 years old, a conscious age.
- The vampire’s hair is cut off immediately. Why? Is that an injury? Hair is not even a living tissue.
- She hates Lestat, but remains loyal to Louis. Why? They are both to blame for her conversion, and her character is as bloodthirsty as that of Lestat, she is much closer to him.
- Heroes are looking for other vampires. Why? Other vampires are the only ones who are dangerous in a world without police. The funny thing is, it ends up killing Claudia.
- Vampires-theaters kill people right on stage as part of the play. But if the victim knows it's going to be real now, why is it being so passive that it just fits in? The real victim would have fought for her life with more conspicuous enthusiasm and shouted into the audience that it was not a performance.
- They punish heroes for killing their own kind. Louis and Claudia are guilty, but what does their new convert have to do with it? It's just killing another vampire for no reason.
- A vampire can live in a box for centuries. But then why would he even have blood?
- Louis burns a pack of vampires in coffins. Why don't they have a sentry just for a case like this?
- How could the coach have arrived so early? Wurdalak knew who and when to save?
- The reporter wants to make him a vampire. Why? Others were pushed to this tragedy, and what is it missing?
- And most importantly, how could Lestat survive after he was slipped dead blood, slit his throat, drowned, and then burned? That's ridiculous. Yes, the film needs a spectacular ending, but it is complete nonsense.
- It was also surprising that there was no kiss at all in the film, which Kirsten Dunst famously complained about. There is only a clearly imitated kiss closed with a palm. What's the fuss about then?
So yes, the film is beautifully made, and nowadays there is even a lack of such book films with simple, linear, personal, but strongly staged stories. But you can only watch this movie by turning off your brain.