Recap: Pierre Peders, a political journalist, gets a for him unusual assignment to interview Katya, a diva and celebrity most known for her constant appearances in the tabloids. Pierre is very reluctant to do the piece, which he considers to be beneath him, and when Katya is over an hour late, the interview turns out to be a disaster. They leave quickly but after a small accident where Peter bumps his head he get invited to Katya's apartment. There an intricate game with different levels begin where both try to use the other to each owns personal ends.Comments: A remake after a Dutch original which I haven't seen (but must confess that I want to see it now) but it does seem to be very able to stand on its own legs. A rather unusual movie with basically just two persons battling it out in a interesting game and relationships. It pays to keep focus for the pace of the movie change quickly and the entire relationship between the two can turn on a single word. Actually, it wasn't bad to see it on DVD so I could go back and check what exactly was said and done some times.It is a very good story. Complex and entertaining. Always evolving, twisting and turning like it has a life of its own. But it is also very dependent on the two main actors. And they both give stellar performances. Steve Buscemi is deeply underrated in the movie industry and he often outplays everyone from the supporting bits he is far too often given. So, for me, it is no real surprise that he once again gives a solid performance. Buscemi is presently one of the best and to watch him act is reason enough to see any movies of him. In Interview he also has taken up the role of director and writer, adapting the movie from its original. And not surprisingly, the effort is flawless, as the story turned out so captivating, engaging and entertaining as it did.More surprisingly then is that Buscemi is actually challenged by Sienna Miller about best the performance. Miller has a very difficult role to portray the beautiful, manipulating and very complex diva. Her character twists between mania or depression in a second and everything is very believable. I had no doubt anytime or felt that she went over the top. It's a stellar performance and proof that Miller is much more than a beautiful face. Under Buscemi's direction she gives a stellar performance and it is a little odd that she doesn't turn up in bigger roles in bigger movies. She has got the talent and looks for it.Strongly recommended movie, especially if you want a change from the more common highly explosive action pieces of the blockbusters… 8/10

In a movie such as this, with a clever premise of a former brilliant journalist being demoted to interviewing starlets there should be some TENSION.I kept waiting for it. For some genuine cat and mouse play. So I forgave a lot of atrocious scripting and lack of character development.I mean Steve calls Sienna the C word when their interview breaks down in a restaurant and she then immediately rescues him when he gets injured outside the restaurant and brings him back to her apartment? Puh-lease. And the worst artificial wound I've ever seen on film, starts out real big, pouring blood, and then a bag of frozen peas shrinks it to gnat-bite size in 5 minutes. Yeah.And then what should have been reasonable dialogue to keep audience engaged is flimsy and unbelievable. He gets access to her personal laptop and breaks into her files while she's on the phone? They fight over the TV remote? He gets to French kiss her? Oh right maybe that was the payoff for Steve the person.I did watch to the end. I almost expected wedding bells in true Hollow-wood style but no, I was left dangling and not caring one whit.Don't waste your breath or your $4.00 (bargain bin at the local).4 out of 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 kind of effort is rare in Hollywood. I will not say it is the most intellectual thing I could expect to see, and it was predictable to me in places, but for general audience and intellectual wannabes, it might be more striking or less than it was to me.When you do expect something unorthodox, and you do get it, maybe you say "it was predictable" and maybe you feel kind of dull because you could not stand up and say "Brava! Brava!" thinking the film sort of beat your brainwaves to it, but you also feel glad, thinking someone is kind of thinking about demands of your level and trying to meet the same. From that point of view, I thank Steve Buscemi cordially.Pierre (Buscemi) used to cover the hottest political issues and scandals for a famous TV channel. But for some reason, his editor is sending him to cover "God-awful fluff pieces". Eventually, he has to let go of an important coverage over interviewing Katya (Sienna Miller). She does TV shows and B-movies, but mostly she is famous for the celebrities she sleeps with. Pierre's reactions can be easily imagined.He went to interview Katya thinking girls like her probably have "silicon for brain cells" and what homework should he possibly have done to handle people like that? But through a chain of events that are neither intentional nor unforeseen, they stick together for the night, conducting a one-of-a-kind interview.Some people have criticized this film rather harshly. That's rather unfortunate. If Antonioni made a film like this, most of them would not grab all of it, but would not be able to criticize so boldly because he was an intellectual behemoth. Now that Buscemi gave it a try, those who are happy with "The Departed" and "Chicago" started to say it's such a waste of talent made to look like intellectual crap. Well, it is not. It is an honest film. And may not be the mirror to the height of profundity of human mind, but still quite admirable a work.If Buscemi had more experience, he would perhaps work a little more on the ending. It is a popular trick to run the film slow and give a sudden end twist when audience was just about to "Is that all there is?" This film's end twist is rather subtle and it loses its impact due to a little naive direction.Sienna Miller was a wise choice for this. Those who accidentally bought the tickets without knowing what kind of a film they were about to watch, won't be 100% disappointed because looking at Sienna Miller is always a feast for sore eyes. She pulls off everything exactly like she Buscemi told her to, I am sure. She never came so much in focus before. I will eagerly wait to see more of her in days to come.In the end, bottom line is the same as always. It's your mind, it's your head. Either you will appreciate Buscemi's effort, or you won't. I did. He did what he could.