Baseshment I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

Curapedi I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

Kien Navarro Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

CineCritic2517 ..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

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.

r0cko723 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.

streetpunk Steve Buscemi is known for is comical and sadistic performances as an actor. In Interview not only does he act in it, he directs and co-writes it. The movie is about a journalist(Buscemi) who is sent to interview a young and famous actress(Miller), they end up asking intimate questions about each others personal life's in (millers) house. Soon (Miller) confesses her secret in exchange for (Buscemi's). when their both done telling their secrets to one another, (Buscemi) leaves but not (miller) delivers a surprising revelation to (Buscemi).The performances are very good from (Buscemi) and (Miller). Buscemi is an experienced actor and it shows with this performance, he has been a consistent actor over the years and he doesn't let up in this one. Miller is a young actress, she shows talent with this performance, by the end you'll believe that she is the character she plays, in real life. This movie reminds me of "Hard Candy" because of the sexual tension that goes on through the movie, and the one on one conversations.Now for the not so good part. How is it that millers character becomes so compassionate for Buscemi's character and even takes him to her home after she was being mean and self centered before the accident. Also how does Buscemi's character know how to act? Hes a journalist. other than that i think the movies was very good and after seen it again i liked it more because i understood things that i dint the first time through. I felt that the running time was good at eighty something minutes because if it was longer it would of started to get annoying. I enjoyed this movie, and i hope Buscemi keeps directing movies because they are fun to watch.