IMDb user comments for
Queen of the Damned (2002)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 67:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

662 comments in total

---

75 out of 106 people found the following comment useful :-
Damned good fun, 6 January 2005

Author: (Eibzesii) from United States

As a fan of the novels and the movie Interview with a Vampire, I spent a good half hour yelling at the screen before realizing the following:

1. These are not Anne Rice's vampires. Every character is different, despite their names (The only one to nail a character was Vincent Perez, the highlight of the movie as Marius. Good job.)

2. The plot of the movie is not based on the books. It as if someone picked up a copy of The Vampire Lestat and Queen of the Damned, opened to random pages, made assumptions, got bored and stopped reading, then wrote a screenplay.

3. The vampiric rules adhered to in the books are not followed in the movie. The vampires just do whatever is coolest. A certain vampire can't fly? Why not? And why not give him a trail?

Once you have acknowledged all these things, you can watch the movie. Have fun. This is not heavy stuff like Interview with the Vampire. Watch Stuart Townsend dance around in a mesh shirt and tight pants, and applaud when his shirt disappears, or, if you like it better, watch Aaliyah gyrate in a scanty metal bra contraption. It's what these two do best.

Embrace its plot holes and stupid dialog (which lends itself to random quoting), sing along to the entertaining rock songs. Try and figure out what each of the ancients are named. Pride yourself if you can provide any explanation for what happens at the end of the movie, because "trimming to help the pace" leaves the ending fairly incomprehensible, especially to those who have read the books.

Be sure to watch the extra features, the gag reel for laughs and the deleted scenes if you want to know what happened in the movie. Also try the various documentaries, which are entertaining when they throw in weird special effects while people are speaking.

Perfect for a loud, popcorn-filled Friday night with the friends!

Prindora (Eibzesii)

---

40 out of 56 people found the following comment useful :-
By any other name. . ., 22 November 2003
Author: merritt-5 from Terra Firma, Milky Way

This might have been a good movie it they hadn't of associated it with the book. Any reader of the Vampire Chronicles knows what I mean. They changed so much of the story that they will be unable to make any of the other books into movies without changing them completely also or remaking this one.

They totally trivalized the debate between Akasha and her 'children'.

Marius (who did not make Lestat btw) in the chronicles is the great reasoner of the Vampires. In the book he had a long argument for Akasha. In the movie all he says to her is "Akasha, please". He was never jealous of Lestat drinking from Akasha (he himself had many many times) and didn't try to hide Enkil and Akasha from Lestat. They turned the Vampires from sad and beautiful creatures of the night who only kill the evil-doer into blood hungry wanna-bes who eat whatever mortal wanders by. Maharet's twin, Mekare, isn't even in the story. Mekare crawling out of the jungles after thousands of years, insane and single minded, to fufill the curse she spoke to Akasha in her court in ancient times was a major plot point. Anyway, my point is that a very well thought-out and seductive story was turned into a joke of a movie. Honestly, don't bother seeing the movie, read the book.

---

36 out of 52 people found the following comment useful :-
As a stand alone vampire flick, it's worth seeing., 17 September 2002
Author: Peter Bott (faethor@ptd.net) from Jim Thorpe, PA

Combining The Vampire Lestat and the Queen of the Damned novels into one screenplay was, ahem, damned to suffer massive story cuts because of the intricate and detailed background of a dozen or so characters involved. The amount of detail always was the strength of the Vampire Chronicles, in my opinion, and they were certainly worth the read.

That said, the question remains, without the detail and extra characters, can the basic story of Lestat's re-awakening of the Queen of all vampires be entertaining and sufficient enough to sustain itself? While I can not answer the question with a glowing appraisal, I will certainly admit that it did a decent job of combining all of the basic elements into a stand alone movie. The fact that this movie can stand on it's own without any ties to the prequel, Interview with the Vampire, is one of it's assets. You do not need any fore-knowledge of the characters, books, or prequel movie in order to watch this.

Even though it fits into it's own little package does not mean it was packed very well. There were some plot holes, some of which could have been filled by simply restoring the "Ancients" scenes that were on the dvd. I understand, as the dvd points out, that they were left out because it introduced another subplot and characters that would add unnecessary confusion. While I agree with their reasoning, I do think they should have somehow salvaged the scene so that while the introductions of the ancients would have been left out, Maharet's few lines about Akasha's reign of destruction and the vampire's responsibility should have remained. They would have added a needed sense of urgency and motivation that would have made the final confrontation with Akasha and the ancients a bit more reasonable and satisfying.

The character of Jessie is supposed to be the human link for the viewer to empathize through as they are taken into the world of vampires. In some scenes, this works adequately, but on the whole, Jessie's motivations, while they are explained, seem kind of empty. I am not sure if I can fault the actress or script, but when the movie was over, I still felt ambivalent about the character's experiences.

There were other elements that were not as fleshed out as they could be. The paranormal Talamasca needed a bit more background about their vampire tracking as did the character of Maharet and her family tree. Like Jessie, they were given some explanation, but I think a couple more lines of dialogue would have helped.

As I mentioned, the movie did a decent job of the basic story, but massive changes were made from the source material. Characters were dropped completely, or merged together, and huge sections of character history were removed. Most notably, Lestat's history is extremely compacted and revised. Nonetheless, there are some things that remained that I thought were done pretty well. The character of Lestat in this picture is rebellious and reckless which is more true to the character than he was portrayed in Interview. Lestat's re-awakening and concert scenes were exactly like I had envisioned when I originally read the book. The character of Akasha was also as I pictured and a very good casting choice.

If you are a fan of the books, and you need the twins, Gabriel, Magnus, and crew, you are going to have difficulty sitting through this. If, on the other hand, you can set that aside and view this as a vampire movie of it's own, unrelated to the chronicles, you will probably enjoy this for the stand-alone vampire flick that it is.

In summary, worth the rental.

---

31 out of 43 people found the following comment useful :-
Exactly what I expected, 9 March 2005

Author: batman1891 from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

This film was basically set up for failure by the studio. One, Anne Rice (author of the book) offered to write the screen play but was refused by the studio. Two, they tried to stuff 2 in depth novels in to a 2hour movie.

I maintain the only way for these two books -Vampire Lestat and Queen of the Damned- to work in a live action form would be through a mini-series. First off the the Vampire Lestat alone takes place from the 1700's to the 1980's and has a plethora of character vital to the plot understanding of the main character, Lestat. The entire book Vampire Lestat sets up the events of the second part Queen of the Damned. Without that full understanding the premise of a movie is destroyed.

Lestat was not cruel and vicious to all, he was not wanting to go along with Akasha's plans, Marius did not make Lestat, Lestat did not love Jesse or make her, Lestat could not go remain unscathed by the light, Marius was not after David nor the other way around, every character was completely represented wrong, BASICALLY same names different story.

If they wanted to make a vampire movie, fine. Even if you wanted to be inspired by these novels, fine. But don't piggie back into the theaters off the success of Rice's great novels and characters just to destroy what her loyal readers have come to love.

If you haven't read the books you won't understand the film really, if you have read the books you will be insulted. That being said, I am such a huge fan I had to see the movie knowing full well this was going to be the case and still went for it. Catch 22, must see it, will hate it.

---

37 out of 58 people found the following comment useful :-
One You Can Sink Your Teeth Into, 27 February 2002

Author: jhclues from Salem, Oregon

If vampire tales are your cup of blood, then this Goth-fest based on the Anne Rice Vampire Chronicles should prove to be a satisfying experience. A veritable consortium of the undead in a contemporary setting, `Queen of the Damned,' directed by Michael Rymer, is a story of shadows and darkness, and of the unfortunate souls who dwell therein for eternity.

The vampire Lestat (Stuart Townsend), bored with a world that no longer excites him, has been `asleep' for many years; but suddenly, the sounds of that world he hears from his extended slumber change, and liking what he hears, he ventures forth to investigate. What he finds is a world filled with new sounds, a new kind of music-- driving and penetrating-- sounds that assault the senses and make him feel alive and welcome. And he knows that at long last his time has come, that it is time for him and those like him to come out into the open and face the world on their terms. Toward that end he becomes the front man for a band-- a singer and performer unlike any the world has ever known. He presents himself as a vampire, and very quickly amasses a following that extends far beyond London (where it all begins), and will ultimately take him to Death Valley, California, where he plans to give a concert that promises to be beyond anything anyone has ever seen or experienced.

Lestat is powerful, without question, but there are those of his kind who do not take favorably to the fact that he has revealed them, one of whom is Marius (Vincent Perez), a vampire powerful in his own right-- the vampire, in fact, who `made' Lestat so many years before-- and they are gathering, coming together and making their plans to meet Lestat at the concert. And they are not going for the music. But there is something else, as well: At one point Lestat has inadvertently awakened the `Mother' of them all, the most powerful of all the vampires, Akasha (Aaliyah), who is about to make her presence known to all, and especially to the one she has chosen to rule by her side as her King: Lestat. And at the concert, rest assured, Akasha will be in attendance, without fail.

Make no mistake, this is Lestat's story, and Rymer presents it amid a setting rich with atmosphere and with some exquisite moments, though his film has less bite to it than say, `Interview With the Vampire,' or `Bram Stoker's Dracula.' He sets a good pace, and there are some scenes that provide some real thrills, but overall the film isn't as soaked in menace as it could be, or as much as one might expect. In the final tally, in fact, the amount of flesh that is incinerated wins out over actual blood-letting, though there is more than a taste of gore, and more than a fair share of lips and mouths dripping with the red stuff. There's some good F/X on hand, too, especially in the sequences that accentuate the speed of the vampires, as they move and hurtle through the air faster than the naked eye can discern. It's a decent job by Rymer, but he could have put more teeth into it had he played up the alienation hinted at by Lestat; as it is, you get a sense of his detachment, but not enough to get you totally involved.

In `Interview With the Vampire,' Tom Cruise brought some charismatic star power to the role of Lestat, but Townsend is even more effective, with a look and an attitude that captures Lestat perfectly. He plays him with a sense of acceptance, and under closer scrutiny you may even find a hint of remorse and longing. It's a good performance, and one that sells his character convincingly.

As Marius, Vincent Perez does a nice job, too-- he is, in fact, one of the strengths of the film-- though his character is a bit ambiguous; that, however, has more to do with the way he was written than with Perez's performance, which is quite good.

Turning in noteworthy performances, as well, are Marguerite Moreau, as Jesse, a young woman too curious for her own good; and the gorgeous Lena Olin as Maharet, Jesse's Aunt, who ultimately plays a pivotal role in the outcome of the drama involving Lestat and Akasha.

And as Akasha, Aaliyah is an absolutely riveting presence. What more can one say about her other than she is a gifted performer, with tremendous talent and beauty. And, tragically, she has left us much too soon.

The supporting cast includes Paul McGann (David), Christian Manon (Mael), Claudia Black (Pandora), Bruce Spence (Khayman), Matthew Newton (Armand), Tiriel Mora (Roger) and Megan Dorman (Maudy). With a much stronger story than the usual offerings of this particular genre, Anne Rice fans, especially, will be pleased with `Queen of the Damned,' a film nicely crafted and delivered by director Rymer and his engaging cast. By focusing attention on the drama of the story-- and the way it's presented-- rather than concentrating on merely providing some cheap thrills, Rymer has succeeded in turning out a true horror film that is definitely a cut above, and one that just may whet your appetite for more of the same. And that's the magic of the movies. I rate this one 7/10.

---

49 out of 85 people found the following comment useful :-
If you read the books, avoid this movie., 24 March 2005

Author: silkar_amurana from Florida, United States

I should have known when I heard Anne Rice left the project that the movie would disappoint me. I couldn't have predicted that years after it's release just thinking about the movie still makes me angry. The novels are amazing, and while I understand much gets lost in the translation to screen, this movie was a great big middle finger to her original work. I hope one day someone tries again, the right way, starting with The Vampire Lestat. They change the roles and looks of major and minor characters alike for no good reason. They destroy Lestat's history. The acting of the Queen is exaggerated to the point of comedy, but I just can't bring myself to laugh. The charm and allure of the novels just isn't there. The movie is a bad excuse to cram as many musicians and "dark" imagery as possible into one movie, hoping the teeny Goths of America would lap it up. Part of the appeal of the first movie, of Louis' story, is that he is caught between his humanity and his curse. Lestat is supposed to take over and display the magic and excitement of the vampire world. Thank goodness I read the books first, or I'd have never touched them after this movie.

---

12 out of 16 people found the following comment useful :-
Not great, but better than I expected, 28 February 2005

Author: Jack from Minnesota, USA

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Once you get past all the Nu-metal music and MTV pop culture overload (which is really prevalent in the first half hour or so), this is actually a pretty good movie. Back in ancient Spain (I think) a guy named Lestat (Stuart Townsend) is bitten by a vampire named Marius (Vincent Perez), who then takes him under his wing and introduces him to the vampire lifestyle. He really likes the power and immortality at first, but grows cool on the idea when he figures out that he will be pretty much alone for eternity. While sneaking around Marius' castle one evening, Lestat comes across a secret room where he finds two statues, the king and queen of all vampires. The queen's statue (Akasha, played by Aaliyah) comes partially to life, and Lestat drinks a bit of her blood and gains a bit more power, and perhaps a lot more attitude than he had previously. This increased amount of arrogance comes to fruition hundreds of years later (fast forward to the present), as Lestat is a Nu-metal rock star and has publicly stated that vampires are among us. The rest of the vampires get mad, Akasha comes back to life, they kill off all the vampires that oppose them, then Akasha offers Lestat the opportunity to be her king and rule over the world with her.

There's also a subplot about some girl who was raised by vampires but wasn't one herself, who was sent away to live among the mortals but who always wanted to be a vampire, and she hangs around at a vampire bar and eventually comes back to the vampires who raised her just in time for the big showdown. Overall that whole subplot seemed like a distraction more than anything else.

This movie has a lot of cool stuff in it. In ancient times, Lestat was a violin player, and when he finds the statues of the vampires, instead of being fearful he cheerfully asks them if they'd like to hear some music. It's scenes like that which make this a good movie. I'd say the acting is very good overall, as Lestat is quite a fascinating character in old Spain, though he turns into a complete cliché when he's a Nu-metal star. Aaliyah does an excellent job as the queen of the vampires, totally unsympathetic to humans, vampires, and pretty much anything else. It's the way the character needs to be, and she pulls if off very well. Looks very good doing it too!

The biggest problem is all the MTV pop culture stuff. This movie is going to seem incredibly dated in 10 or 20 years. But Lestat's violin playing makes up for it. Some of the dialog and action sequences are supremely corny and very B-movie in attitude, but it doesn't drag the movie down too badly. It could have been great, but it turned out pretty good.

---

7 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
Why God?! WHY?!, 2 November 2006

Author: ElmSt_Brat from Australia

Why did they unleash this movie upon us? It seems as though they set out to make this movie a total slap in theface to Anne Rice and every self respecting Vampire Chronicles fan. It ignores the ground work laid down by Interview with the Vampire,mutilates the plot of the novel and has Stuart Townsend stumbling around drunk.

Stuart is NOT our Lestat! Our brat prince, our adventurous rebel with the damndest sense of humor. Stuart IS a second rate, boring rip off of Dracula in black leather. He DID NOT read the books or know the character...is he illiterate? Tom Cruise is dyslexic and still he made a point to read the books and know and love Lestat.

Don't kid yourselves, it is not a "Stand Alone" vampire flick it's trash plain and simple.

---

14 out of 22 people found the following comment useful :-
Don't expect a lot from this one., 1 June 2005

Author: Carl Phillips from New Jersey, United States

Despite a few acceptable adaptations of the books' main themes, QUEEN OF THE DAMNED/THE VAMPIRE LESTAT did not stay true to Anne Rices's complicated story telling. The deep layers that build up all the characters were shredded apart to only their surface, if not a completely different identity. The chronological order of the major events in the movie seemed warped and uneven.

However, there were quite a few things the movie did to deserve my rating of 7. One was that the film strongly captured the affect that Lestat (among other vampires)had to the public, especially young girls. The movie also did a fairly good job focusing on the importance of heredity and history that the vampires took pride in. The scenes of sensuality were also atmospherically satisfying.

The acting in QUEEN OF THE DAMNED was moderate, if disappointing. Stuart Townsend and Aaliyah have a surprising chemistry, though it only shows when the acting is at its best (not very often). The characters are nothing compared to the ones established in INTERVIEW WITH A VAMPIRE. It also lacks the emotional intelligence of THE FEAST OF ALL SAINTS, which is a shame because Rice's Queen of the Damned book had that, and more.

This movie doesn't give all that it appears to be. The effects are dull and very disappointing. The extravagance needed in many scenes is not given, and the dialog is tiring. The settings for many scenes are not how I pictured them in the book, and I think that many of them weren't even taken from the story. There are only a few areas of incoherence near the beginning and middle of the movie, but it wraps itself up fairly neatly, giving the viewer a full story (if they had not read the book).

Somethings that I feel the movie needed include a good original score (Howard Shore or Elmer Bernstein), instead of the mix of rock music; though I had no problem with some of the songs. Another thing that would have made the movie better is better set direction. The scenery was boring as well as unclear, which is important in a story that moves around quite frequently.

Overall, QUEEN OF THE DAMNED was an unevenly disappointing yet somewhat satisfying adaption of the important novel. With a few simple changes, it may have been a very successful piece of film work. I'd recommend this movie for people who has seen INTERVIEW or have read the books, so that they can make their own opinion on the adaption.

---

5 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
More like Lestat, 3 July 2005

Author: pigletgirlkp from Massachusetts

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I read all the books after seeing Interview with a Vampire and still to this day go on tangents about how poorly they cast Lestat in that film. I was a little scared of seeing this because of that but my fears went away after one look at Stuart Townsend. This man was born to play a vampire and played Lestat like he knew him intimately. I put aside the small differences in appearance and fell in love with the sharp wit that I have learned to embrace from this, unfortunately fictional, character. The movie was not named right and I was surprised that Anne Rice let the screenwriter change so much of the background story. Anyone who loves the chronicles will be able to sit and make a list starting with Lestat's real sire and the non-existent twins never mind the choice for Akasha, which WAS well performed. The movie is mostly Lestat (the book) but turns into a summarized version of The Queen of the Damned. If you are not a big fan of the chronicles of have not read them it won't matter to you. The story is good and the cinematography is top notch and Best part of all...Stuart Townsend is shirtless through most of it (which in my opinion could make a lesbian straight.) In short one of the best vampire movies but the novels are still better.

---

---

Page 1 of 67:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Ratings
Awards	Newsgroup reviews	External reviews
Official site	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user comments	Your vote history