757 reviews
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)
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)
- pigletgirlkp
- Jul 2, 2005
- Permalink
- FlashCallahan
- Mar 14, 2015
- Permalink
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.
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.
- Peter Bott
- Sep 16, 2002
- Permalink
- batman1891
- Mar 8, 2005
- Permalink
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.
- silkar_amurana
- Mar 23, 2005
- Permalink
This movie was a good book turned into a brain dead vampire movie aimed at teenagers. First of all it's based on half the story (the book before it in the series "The Vampire Lestat" ended with the beginning of "Queen of the Damned") They left out main characters, omitted the histories, and even changed how Lestat became a vampire, what was left out of "Interview With The Vampire" felt like they just needed to fit into some time constraints, what they did with "Queen of the Damned" was a hack and slash job. Even taking it separately from the book, it was at best mediocre. The characters were two dimensional, and bland, and the plot was boring and unconnected. This movie's only redeeming qualities were the mood the lighting and the sets added, and the costumes, which both were wonderful, but besides that, read the book instead.
- cobweb_fairy
- Aug 9, 2003
- Permalink
Ok, so this is not a brilliant movie. Its not even a very good movie. But it is a bit of a guilty pleasure. Kind of half vampire movie, half rock video.
The reason I like Queen of the Damned? Stuart Townsend as Lestat - he is utterly beautiful in this film. Sexy, seductive, with model-looks. The man looks the part and he plays the part very well too. You can understand why characters are seduced by him. He totally oozes that kind of sexy rockstar charm.
I know the movie is literally nothing like the novel, and it garnered a LOT of criticism for that, as well as it generally not being a particularly great movie even if you treat it as stand-alone.
I tend to put this movie on when I fancy watching something a little silly that doesn't require an awful lot of thinking about. Its kind of early 2000s trash at its finest.
The reason I like Queen of the Damned? Stuart Townsend as Lestat - he is utterly beautiful in this film. Sexy, seductive, with model-looks. The man looks the part and he plays the part very well too. You can understand why characters are seduced by him. He totally oozes that kind of sexy rockstar charm.
I know the movie is literally nothing like the novel, and it garnered a LOT of criticism for that, as well as it generally not being a particularly great movie even if you treat it as stand-alone.
I tend to put this movie on when I fancy watching something a little silly that doesn't require an awful lot of thinking about. Its kind of early 2000s trash at its finest.
- malpasc-391-915380
- Aug 12, 2021
- Permalink
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.
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.
I'm notorious among my loved ones for my love of movies that most people wouldn't like. I'm blessed with a gift to appreciate them, I guess. And I'm also blessed with the ability to take movies as totally separate from their book counterparts. Die hard Ann Rice fans might not like this movie because it slams two books (The Vampire Lestat and The Queen of the Damned) into one to make a relatively short film. So, obviously, a lot of the story was changed or left out. Which makes it understandable why some were upset. I mean, come on, Interview With the Vampire was over two hours long, and it was the movie version of just one book.
However, taken as it's own story, the movie is actually very good. Well, in my opinion. Stuart Townsend's portrayal of Lestat is wonderful. And it doesn't hurt that he takes off his shirt quite a bit (he has a really nice, defined, if lean, body) and wears leather pants quite a bit. He also has the rock star quality that is often missing when most actors play musicians. You can see how into the music he is. He also is able to project Lestat's arrogance and loneliness very well.
Vincent Perez, who plays Marius, also does a wonderful job. Though quite popular in Europe, he is sadly under-appreciated in the U.S. I can't honestly say that his portrayal was dead on (so to speak) because I haven't read any of the books the character appears in, but I thought he was quite good. (Another one that is good-looking, ladies.)
Akasha, unfortunately, displays very few emotions, so Aaliyah didn't get a chance to really showcase her acting talents in her final performance, but she did play the evil vampire convincingly. Since she was said to be quite pleasant in real life, I'd say her performance was excellent.
Most of the remaining cast were also enjoyable, if not impressive in their performances.
There are also interesting special effects.
I loved this movie.
If nothing else, you should at least check out the soundtrack. The songs are well penned and preformed by a number of talented musicians. My advice? At least give this movie a chance. Despite the bad reviews, you may find yourself pleasantly surprised.
However, taken as it's own story, the movie is actually very good. Well, in my opinion. Stuart Townsend's portrayal of Lestat is wonderful. And it doesn't hurt that he takes off his shirt quite a bit (he has a really nice, defined, if lean, body) and wears leather pants quite a bit. He also has the rock star quality that is often missing when most actors play musicians. You can see how into the music he is. He also is able to project Lestat's arrogance and loneliness very well.
Vincent Perez, who plays Marius, also does a wonderful job. Though quite popular in Europe, he is sadly under-appreciated in the U.S. I can't honestly say that his portrayal was dead on (so to speak) because I haven't read any of the books the character appears in, but I thought he was quite good. (Another one that is good-looking, ladies.)
Akasha, unfortunately, displays very few emotions, so Aaliyah didn't get a chance to really showcase her acting talents in her final performance, but she did play the evil vampire convincingly. Since she was said to be quite pleasant in real life, I'd say her performance was excellent.
Most of the remaining cast were also enjoyable, if not impressive in their performances.
There are also interesting special effects.
I loved this movie.
If nothing else, you should at least check out the soundtrack. The songs are well penned and preformed by a number of talented musicians. My advice? At least give this movie a chance. Despite the bad reviews, you may find yourself pleasantly surprised.
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.
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.
- carlphillips1
- May 31, 2005
- Permalink
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.
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.
- ElmSt_Brat
- Nov 1, 2006
- Permalink
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.
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.
It was horrible. It might as well have been completely different story from the original novel. All of the characters...well most of them, perhaps a few...fine there was one character that came close to following the book and that was Akasha. And she wasn't even that similar. Usually, when adapting a book into a movie the screenwriter usually cuts parts to make it fit into a time slot. In this case, they cut out so much and added things that never really happened. For goodness sakes, Mael was older than the man who played David and David is supposed to be in his 60s during this time. They completely cut out Louis, Gabrielle, Mekare and the entire story of how the Vampires came to be. Then the characters of Pandora, Armand, Mael and Khayman were merely extras and only showed up at the very end. They never even speak their names. And Pandora is a Roman woman, not Indian. Khayman was young when made a vampire, not an elderly man. Marius did NOT make Lestat and he should've been typed out of the role. Finally, Lestat. There is almost nothing right about Lestat. Lestat is a BLOND and was made by MAGNUS and had several fledglings, including his mother and best friend. Thats where he got the Stradavarius violin.
- majik_tripp
- Sep 13, 2002
- Permalink
First of all, I would like to give major credits for the music contributed to this movie. Excellent! This is why I gave it 2.
If you've read the book by Anne Rice, and preferably the trilogy(Interview with a Vampire, Vampire Lestat and Queen of the damned), you will probably get sick by watching this movie. It misses all the major points of the book, and is even missing major characters from the original story. I won't say much more than the fact that it sucked.
Don't watch this movie! Read the book instead!
If you've read the book by Anne Rice, and preferably the trilogy(Interview with a Vampire, Vampire Lestat and Queen of the damned), you will probably get sick by watching this movie. It misses all the major points of the book, and is even missing major characters from the original story. I won't say much more than the fact that it sucked.
Don't watch this movie! Read the book instead!
- poolandrews
- Jan 30, 2005
- Permalink
Despite the pans of reviewers, I liked this movie. In fact, I liked it better than Interview With a Vampire and I liked this Lestat (Stuart Townsend) better than Cruise's attempt. All the major players from the series were present: Talbot, Lestat, Armand, Maharet, Khayman, Pandora, Mael, Marius and a half-dozen more (albeit most of them in cameo). Marius, Lestat and Akasha were the main players (and Jesse of the Talamasca). Also, despite other reviews, I think this movie and the music was faithful to Anne Rice's portrayal and ethos, at least as I perceive it. Aailiyah was pretty good as Akasha, in places compelling (her first entrance and mini dance scene). The movie didn't capture the breadth of the books series but I thought it was a nice supplement.
I'm a big fan of this series mostly due to Anne Rice's style, sensitivities and treatments. And I found this movie a faithful and often superlative representation of the author's vision.
I'm a big fan of this series mostly due to Anne Rice's style, sensitivities and treatments. And I found this movie a faithful and often superlative representation of the author's vision.
- remifasolati
- Nov 24, 2002
- Permalink
This movie is terrible. It really had no plot, and no reason to ever be made. The acting was poor, but it didn't really matter. The movie could have starred Orson Wells and Katherine Hepburn and it still would have been one of the worst movies ever made.
If you want a good vampire movie, check out "Dracula" and "From Dusk 'Til Dawn". Hell, even the Leslie Nielsen movie "Dracula: Dead and Loving It" is a masterpiece compared to this garbage. Trust me, do not see this movie.
If you want a good vampire movie, check out "Dracula" and "From Dusk 'Til Dawn". Hell, even the Leslie Nielsen movie "Dracula: Dead and Loving It" is a masterpiece compared to this garbage. Trust me, do not see this movie.
This is a movie that is a bit hard to review. The reason is that there is a HUGE gap between movie quality and soundtracks.
It is siple, the movie is just ok and worth watching. Just do it.
Just watch the movie on, BUT.... You need a good sound system. Not a "half baked" soundboard that sounds like s$it. The movie is just ok as it is, it is a vampire movie that is worth watching at least ones just for the movie it self. But what makes it worth watching a few more times is the music in the movie. Is simply is epic. It is so epic that I have watched the movie 4 times and I dont know how many times I have listen to the sountrack on other medias. It is EPIC! But you really need a good audio system to enjoy it fully.
I recomand you to watch the movie at least ones,
It is siple, the movie is just ok and worth watching. Just do it.
Just watch the movie on, BUT.... You need a good sound system. Not a "half baked" soundboard that sounds like s$it. The movie is just ok as it is, it is a vampire movie that is worth watching at least ones just for the movie it self. But what makes it worth watching a few more times is the music in the movie. Is simply is epic. It is so epic that I have watched the movie 4 times and I dont know how many times I have listen to the sountrack on other medias. It is EPIC! But you really need a good audio system to enjoy it fully.
I recomand you to watch the movie at least ones,
- striderpcc
- Jan 14, 2023
- Permalink
Gosh, this must be one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I really love Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles and Queen of the Damned is one of the best in the series. I loved her ideas, all the philosophy and the emotions that were in the book... BUT WHAT HAPPENED??? This movie has nothing to do with the book! They just picked out a few characters they seemed to like, mixed up the whole plot and made a 'common vampire film'. Hello??? Did I miss something? A pity Anne Rice sold the rights to Miramax, and I'm also sorry for Stuart Townsend who does his job as Lestat quite good (well, obviously he was the victim of a very very bad director!) If you liked INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE, you won'T like this! Interview submitted the right feeling, but this movie is crap!
- MrsObvious
- Feb 19, 2003
- Permalink
Great Plot & Amazing Performance From Dead Singer Aaliyah .
Rated R, yet does not offend Kids.
Action From Beginning To End .
Handsome Actor Stuart Townsend in his best roles.
Great Soundtrack & Awesome Movie About Vampires.
Rated R, yet does not offend Kids.
Action From Beginning To End .
Handsome Actor Stuart Townsend in his best roles.
Great Soundtrack & Awesome Movie About Vampires.
It was strange seeing Stuart Townsend as Lestat, because I associate him with XIII: The Series, but oh well. I find the concept of this movie so hilarious. Lestat was almost murdered by his boyfriend and their daughter and abandoned in a bog, and he got out and decided to become a famous rock star?? the most iconic thing I've ever heard. yeah, the plot and editing were sloppy, the graphics aren't the greatest, and some of the acting is pretty bad, but I love this movie regardless. you know what the most high-quality thing about this movie is? without a doubt, Aaliyah (rest her soul). she's the perfect choice for Akasha, and she absolutely stole the show with her powerful performance. most people hated this cliched movie, and I see why, but I enjoyed it and I'll shamelessly watch it multiple times.
- demonsquipster
- Oct 2, 2019
- Permalink
Not even a score of 1 is low enough for this movie. It is a complete butchering of Anne Rice's masterpiece novel "The Queen of the Damned" which you should read if you haven't already because once you read this book you will realize how bad the movie truly is. In my opinion the only reason it did as well as it did in the theaters is because of all Aaliyah's fans who wanted to come see her last movie. Take my advice stay as far away from this movie as you can get!
- vampyress84
- Jan 22, 2003
- Permalink