Interview with the Vampire by Stephen Farber Most of Tom Cruise's roles have traded on his boyish persona, and Interview with the Vampire makes it clear that he has nothing else to offer. He doesn't have the size or stature or style to play a great villain like the vampire Lestat. He can't even wear the 18th century costumes without looking like a kid at a Halloween party. Cruise has never had any vocal power. Trying to seem suavely sinister, he lowers his voice to a whisper and still chirps like a Valley boy. Exploding in rage, he sounds not like a demon unleashed but like a tot throwing a tantrum. Worst of all, he doesn't have the smoldering adult sexuality that the part requires. To tell the truth, he's never been an erotic actor. His only good sex scenes--as in Risky Business--came when he was being seduced. Playing the seducer, he simply has no danger. Cruise's performance is far from the only thing wrong with Neil Jordan's movie. It has repulsive moments but no real suspense and no sensuality either. Still, the thing might have worked with another actor in Cruise's part. Brad Pitt is sympathetic as the tormented Louis, and late in the movie Antonio Banderas makes a striking entrance, offering a hint of the perverse, teasing eroticism the movie might have had if he had played Lestat. The saddest thing about the whole enterprise is what it reveals about Hollywood's capacity for self-delusion. Everybody knew from the first instant it was announced that Tom Cruise was miscast--but a lot of smart people found ways to rationlize the blunder because the bucks were big. The movie may well make money, but no matter how many zillions it grosses, Tom Cruise will forever after be something of a joke. With his fangs and blond locks, he's given comedians a rich mother lode of material for years to come, and that's not the best way for a star to assure his immortality. What did you think of this movie? Sound off in the Movie Forum.