Vampire’s Kiss earns its 6.5 as an interesting, deeply strange film that’s far more interesting as a document of one of the most committed and bizarre performances in screen history than as a coherent movie. Nicolas Cage plays a yuppie literary agent who, after a one-night stand he believes involved a vampire, becomes convinced he’s turning into one, and slowly disintegrates into florid madness.
Whether Peter is actually becoming a vampire or simply losing his mind is left ambiguous, but the ambiguity matters less than the spectacle of Cage going further than perhaps any leading actor has ever gone. This is a flawed, uneven film built entirely around a performance that’s to be seen to be believed.
The movie itself is a strange tonal object, a black comedy and a psychological horror film that doesn’t always cohere, and on its own terms it’s only intermittently successful. But as a vehicle for Cage’s legendary excess, it’s essential viewing, a film whose reputation rests almost entirely on what its star does inside it.
The Cage Performance
Nicolas Cage’s performance in Vampire’s Kiss is the stuff of legend, and it’s impossible to discuss the film without it being the center of everything. Cage plays Peter Loew as a man coming apart, and he commits to the disintegration with a fearlessness that borders on the deranged. He adopts a bizarre transatlantic accent, contorts his body into impossible postures, and delivers some of the most unhinged line readings ever committed to film.
He famously ate a live cockroach on camera, refusing to fake it. That tells you everything about his commitment to the role.
What’s unusual is that the performance, for all its excess, isn’t random. Cage is using his extremity to portray genuine mental collapse, and there’s a real method beneath the madness, a deliberate construction of a man whose grip on reality is dissolving. The performance is at once hilarious, disturbing, and weirdly committed to its own internal logic. It became the source of countless internet clips precisely because it’s so extreme, but watching the full film reveals a stranger and more intentional thing than the clips suggest.
It’s a genuine high-wire act.
The Ambiguous Breakdown
Beneath the spectacle, the film has a genuine subject, the psychological breakdown of a shallow, predatory yuppie. Peter is a contemptible figure even before his collapse, a vain, cruel literary agent who torments his put-upon assistant, and the film frames his vampire delusion as the externalization of a man who was already a monster in the ordinary human sense. His belief that he’s becoming a vampire is the eruption of a sickness that was always there.
The film keeps the supernatural ambiguous. Peter buys plastic novelty fangs because his own teeth refuse to transform, sleeps under an overturned couch in place of a coffin, and behaves with escalating derangement, all of which reads as mental illness instead of actual vampirism. The film uses the vampire as a metaphor for a particular kind of eighties masculine predation and narcissism curdling into psychosis. It’s a sharper idea than the film’s chaotic surface always conveys, a portrait of toxic yuppie culture collapsing in on itself.
The Film Around the Performance
The movie surrounding Cage is uneven and frequently doesn’t work. The tone wobbles uncertainly between black comedy and genuine horror, and the film is never quite sure how seriously it wants to be taken. The pacing is erratic, some sequences drag, and the supporting characters, with the notable exception of Maria Conchita Alonso’s tormented assistant, are thin. Without Cage, this would be a forgotten, minor, rather messy film.
Alonso deserves real credit, playing the assistant Peter torments with genuine vulnerability, and her scenes ground the film’s portrait of workplace cruelty in something painfully real. But the film as a whole is a vehicle, built to contain its star’s performance, and it shows. The direction is functional instead of inspired, the script is a loose framework, and the film’s lasting interest is almost entirely a matter of what Cage does within it. It’s a performance in search of a better movie, and it nearly doesn’t matter, because the performance is that convincing.
Is Vampire’s Kiss worth watching?
Vampire’s Kiss earns its 6.5 almost entirely on the strength of one of the most committed and bizarre performances in screen history. Nicolas Cage’s fearless portrayal of a yuppie’s descent into vampire delusion is hilarious, disturbing, and weirdly methodical, a genuine high-wire act that’s to be seen. Beneath it lies a sharp idea about predatory eighties narcissism curdling into psychosis, anchored by Maria Conchita Alonso’s affecting assistant. It loses points for an uneven, tonally uncertain film that functions mainly as a vehicle for its star.
Essential for the performance, forgivable for the flaws, and unlike anything else on this list.
Frequently Asked Questions
Writing in This Genre
This film appears on 2 of my film lists