Interview, a remake of the Theo Van Gogh film from a few years back, is a taut tightrope act between two characters who can't stand one another and seem somehow fascinated all the same. Whether or not that fascination, or even that resentment, is genuine is also part of the sort of guessing game; is she really giving out who her real self, or is she actually mopey? The dialog is revelatory though, the kind that makes for great theater, where we're given two characters and a whole bottle of neuroses poured out into a one-night thicket, which is probably a convention too at this point with theater. But Buscemi makes it compelling cinema, for the bulk of it, before it starts to reel into the realm of the twisty-psychological guessing game- final twist included- that should seem natural but feels a little more of a contrivance. You really can't stand these people (or actually Miller's character),but you never want to look away from what they'll do next.

It's about a political journalist (Buscemi) assigned to a "fluff piece", begrudgingly, with a hot young starlet of B-movies and TV (Miller),and after a bad dinner interview, or would-be interview, and a bad knock on the head in a taxi cab as Buscemi is leaving the restaurant, she invites him up to her place to clean his wound and suddenly the interview starts up again. Curiosity, coy word games, and the search for some kind of truth- about work, love, oneself with drugs, and the little dark secrets that come out of nowhere, take up what is 3/4 of the film's running time in the loft. One might wonder why this film needed to be because of Van Gogh's original film from years before (which, by the way, had the actors playing their characters with the same names, and as a real serious actor playing against a real TV star).

But Buscemi, as writer, director, and actor, is never one to stop his form of weird fascination too. He's such a strong presence in Interview because he remains the 'voice-of-reason' even as his character drinks and drinks and tells a tragic story that didn't really happen like it was told. And Miller gets the juicy mind-f*** role, where she can go between all the roles that an actress goes through in melodrama while peeling past the layers to show, well, even more layers. By the end we probably don't know her any better than when she sat down for a drink at the restaurant, except perhaps that she loves getting into character and messing with someone who has no idea who she is, in work and in life.

When Interview is at its best, it combines fine performances with a beat after beat of dialog that does a double-cross: it's playfully self-aware of the situation, but at the same time the two characters go for truths about one another that take people sometimes years to get at in 'real' relationships. That it's "game"-ness almost leads it into feeling like an indie-movie lark goes without saying; it's small, compact, and with enough to say in 82 minutes without overstaying its real-time welcome.

Remake of Theo Van Gogh's film of the same name. This is the story of a self important reporter forced to do a celebrity interview with an actress "best known for who she sleeps with".

Good but far from deep-despite what the film thinks-sparring between characters is an amusing if at sometimes uncomfortable 85 minutes. The joy here is watching the actors do what the do best. The real joy here is watching Sienna Miller who proves she really can act. After a few borderline roles and a cringe inducing performance (at least in the trailer) in Stardust she proves that she is oh so much better than we are giving her credit for (clearly she really isn't just an actress best known for insulting cities and whom she sleeps with).

If there is any flaws its a couple of odd twists that seem to occur just to have something dramatic happen and to prove what bad people the characters are. Its a minor flaw.

Is it worth seeing? Yes. But I don't know if it really needs to be seen on the big screen

INTERVIEW (2007) ** ½ Steve Buscemi adapted and directed this remake of slain European filmmaker Theodor Holman's absorbing yet constrained character study about a once hotshot political journalist (Buscemi) forced into taking a fluff piece assigned by his editor on a superficial actress best known for her lascivious lifestyle (Miller, in another strong performance, proving she's more than a pretty face) than for her questionable work. While there is a generous amount of tete-a-tete between the two unlikely protagonists, the trappings of a 2-person play hinders the exercise in ego, fame, celebrity and ethics. While Buscemi continues to prove his versatility both as an actor and as a filmmaker – given the borders of the piece – it is Miller who shrewdly skewers her own image.