A lot of fun.

Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

When he dies I hope they preserve Steve Buscemi and slice him up to figure out how someone could present such a Cretan, regardless of how his character is written on the page. I will always remember his persona from the first time I discovered him on screen in Reservoir Dogs, as the non-tipping Mr. Pink of Quentin Tarantino's crime tale.In the case of the film Interview, we are very lucky that he decided to pursue funding for what for many was a very individual film in the hands of the original filmmaker Theo van Gogh. Van Gogh's background was ostensibly journalistic and his outspoken voice got him eventually killed. That Van Gogh's treatment of his subject matter may have been more for explication than entertainment, this adaptation may be better than the original.Generally American remakes (I don't know why Hollywood constantly does it) are not as good as the originals. Al Pacino was in the remake of Scent of a Woman (ugh…!), and was award an Oscar for his acting in the thing! The TV series The Office with Steve Carell is a remake of an excellent British TV show that is so far above the American simulacrum, that I am embarrassed to admit that it is playing in a country I inhabit.But the Interview remake has a lot going for it that the original doesn't. Steve Buscemi does double duty as director and lead character, political journalist Pierre Peders, assigned the task of doing a fluff piece on the flavor-of-the-week Sienna Miller's self-involved actress Katya. At first this seems like a thin plot to hang an entire film on, but the movie touches on several cultural flash points that are sure to cause controversy in the viewer.There's a particularly vibrant live feeling about the film, and this comes about primarily due to the way the scenes are directed. Buscemi's direction is to tap into the truth of the relationship between Pierre and Katya, and this does come off as caustic at times, but the actors always seem like real people.The look of the flick is well-matched to its themes. Three camera operators shoot consistently each scene from specific vantage points so that many of the reactions from the actors are spontaneous. This is a two-hander and Buscemi and Miller carry the entire feature, and the dynamic that ignites between the two is memorable and will leave you thinking through much of what the characters say and do as the screen fades.The film at times may feel a little too much like theatre. Things happen without a convincing amount of set up. We may wonder why Katya brings Pierre into her apartment in the first place. Some viewers may see it motivated by a sense of guilt on her characters part. Once inside it seems that each character needs the other to fulfill a need. This is never overtly expressed and director Buscemi allows the viewer to supply some speculation.Whatever reason works to drive the story, the needs of each character come out in caustic, sometime violent ways, and the integrity of each is shown as completely devoid of substance. You may feel that the conflict is a standoff, and that viewpoint depends on what your value system dictates.

..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

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.

This movie is so unrealistic it's absolutely unwatchable. We turned it off about 50 minutes into the film, as the dialogue and responses were just completely artificial.****SPOILER ALERT****Katya comes into a restaurant about an hour late, and Pierre is pretty ticked off about it. Their conversation devolves into hurling of insults, with Pierre calling Katya the "C-word". They split, and then as Pierre is driving down the street she sees him get injured in a car accident, and she invites him in to her place to comfort him.Completely unrealistic. Pierre hated Katya, Katya hated Pierre. Now she is trying to get him into her place? Riiiiiiiiiight.Don't waste your time with this cr@p.