Rating: 
Summary: Movies vs. Books: Which is Better?
Review: I've spent most of my time trying to compare books to the movies based on them and I keep getting confused. Personally, I'd recommend reading the book before going to the movie, renting it, or buying it. Even Stephen King's "It" was better than the movie. I didn't really enjoy the profanity in it but that's just me.Queen of the Damned raised a few more questions about vampires for me. Do they really combust in sunlight or can they walk around like the rest of us? Remember that Marius only said 'We are vulnerable in the daylight'. Another one is 'Do they really conceal their identities?' Can they remove our memories of ever even meeting a vampire? There are several variances to the answers and they sure can't be answered by simply reading the books or watching the DVD's. But they sure can entertain ya. As for my rating, I only made it a 4 star cuz I haven't read the book yet. My rating's simply based on A/V quality, performances, and mostly on Aaliyah's costume. May she rest in peace.
Rating:
Summary: maybe not anne rice but still good
Review: i haven't yet read the book but i hear a lot about this not tying well with it. other that that, i think it was a great movie with one the greatest scores of any movie. the music makes half of the movie. the persona portrayed by lestate was very ominess of the crow (expecially the original with brandon lee) you should at least rent the movie to try it out if you've never seen it; and if you like goth, this is the movie to see.
Rating: 
Summary: Forget the book!
Review: I am a die hard Anne Rice fan. If you can forget the books and watch this movie it is a great movie. I was sad that they didnt involve the elders as much. But it really is a good movie!
Rating: 
Summary: It's [bad]
Review: I saw this movie thinking it was going to be great, I mean it was about an Anne Rice book. Well, I must say that it is horrible, the only thing that I really enjoy was the music, it is amazing. The plot doesn't exist or it doesn't resemble the book, they overlook things that are so important for the story, it is a crime.
Rating: 
Summary: Not exactly Anne Rice
Review: I have read the book and like most movies it didn't capture the essence of the movie. I viewed the directors comments, and he stated he didn't want to make the movie into a 2-3 hour movie. He should have, because many characters were not explained, and it is ashame he didn't focus on them all. The movie is simply like the Lost Boys, a vampire movie, and I believe although beautiful- her role was short live- I wanted more of it and more history. So rent it or buy but don't expect much it does have is moments but that is about it.
Rating: 
Summary: Not What I Expected
Review: After my friend was ranting about what a great movies this was I had to go rent it and see for myself. I was disappointed. I was expecting a great movie to follow Interview With A Vampire, but it was far from a great movie. Aaliyah was great in the movie. Her acting was wonderful and the costumes were amazing. Stewert(Lestat) looked nice in leather pants. That was about all that I understood from the movie. The plot was horrible. The movie all together was bad. I liked the graphics and everything, but the plot stunk. I would have loved to watch this movie if it would have followed Interview With A Vampire, but this movie was not a sequel. It should have been a movie on its own with different character names. I don't know why they even made this the sequel. It had nothing at all to do with Inteview With A Vampire. Lastly, if you like vampire movies you might like this. Everyone has differnt taste in movie. I personally did not see the point of this movie. Maybe you can understand it better than me!
Rating:
Summary: Save your money!
Review: If you are an Anne Rice reader, and have read and memorized every detail of the Chronicles, I have this to say: Don't watch this movie. It will break your heart. The only thing this movie has in common with the books is the title and the names of the characters. They've changed everything that made the book exceptional! I kept waiting for the joke to end and the real story to begin - but it didn't happen. I am thankful I didn't spend the money to watch this in the theater, and that I rented it first - otherwise I would probably have burned the DVD on my grill. If you haven't read the books and you like vampire/goth stuff, then you'll probably think the movie is just great. But trust me, read the books. They're better. I wasted two hours of my life that I'll never get back on this movie. I gave it one star since that's the lowest of the low, and another star just for Stuart Townsend who made a credible Lestat. Everything else about this movie was terribly disappointing.
Rating:
Summary: Not So Thrilling, Not So Campy, As To Make Itself Engaging
Review: After eight years, the sequel to "Interview with the Vampire" came, and with all respect to the fans of the genre and Anne Rica fans in particular, I want to speak plainly. The film is terrible. It is very embarrassing to see Aaliyah in this way, and I cannot find the right word to describe my feelings. Not that Stuart Townsend as Lestat is bad. He did a servicable job here, and he should not be blamed for not being Tom Cruise. Production designs are modestly executed, and though Aalyah looks, I am afraid, somehow miscast (too young and too slender to be intimidating queen of vampire resurrected), she does her best to enliven her role.
But its script! There's no way to express my sorry feelings but to report my experience in theater. A young twenty-something Japanese guy (I watched the film in Japan) confessed after the show before his friends that he fell asleep, confused by the incongruous story. Yes, the film sounds like an awfully tedious speech of invited guests in your friend's wedding party, which goes on and on like a snail, without making any point. And the film also features the mind-numbing rock music with many Goth(ic) elements thrown into here and there. The film is about the vampires and a female researcher who is attracted by their underground world, and Aalyah's Egyptian vampire queen Akasha, but the whole work fails to concentrate our interest on one particular spot, going backward and forward in time and place, never knowing where to go. The story as a result looks painfully repetitious. What I am trying to say would be clear if you see the following summery of the film. -- Lestat rules the world (of the rock music mainly) and the heart of women -- Queen Akasha rules the heart (of Lestat) and the world (if possible) -- and Vincent Perez's Marius, Lestat's former master vampire, comes back to Lestat -- and many vampires try to kill off Lestat because the latter declared his identity before the press (however, the film doesn't make it clear whether humans take him seriously, another poor storytelling). And there are other vampire clans lead by Lena Olin, who could or could not be Lestat's emeny. See? The summery doesn't make any sense after all, given too much characters. Perhaps the film is just trying to preserve what is in the original book of Anne Rice. But whatever its intention may be, "Queen of the Damned" is a messy job inspite of some of its visual flair. I didn't like "Interview with the Vampire" very much, but that one at least gave us Kirsten Dunst.
Rating:
Summary: could be better, could be worse
Review: If you haven't read Anne Rice's books, and you're looking for a reasonably entertaining vampire movie, then give this one a try. However, if you have read her books, you will probably do what I did. I spent the entire two hours analyzing the fairly frequent and fairly important details they got wrong. Or regretting the lack of character development. Or plot development. Most of what I enjoy about Anne Rice's books (and the movie Interview with the Vampire, as well) is the careful attention to detail in developing her characters and their environment.
But I do have to give credit where it is due. It wasn't bad acting that brought this movie down, it was a bad script. It could have been so much better.
Rating:
Summary: Completely Bloodless
Review: Hmmm...from reading some of the reviews, I'm wondering if I saw the same film as those people. QUEEN OF THE DAMNED suffers from a multitude of disadvantages not experienced by the previous INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE, but I'll only mention the two most glaring ones. First, it doesn't have the distinguished direction of Neil Jordan. Second, it doesn't have a star nearly as game as Tom Cruise was(contrary to some, he was actually quite good)--instead, we get Micheal Rymer and Stuart Townsend, who are simply no Jordan or Cruise. Townsend is utterly awful as Lestat--playing him as a rock star, he has about as much charisma as a doorknob. It's simply one of the worst performances that I've seen in some time. The rest of the cast seems to be stuck in limbo--even usually great actors like Vincent Perez and Lena Olin are wasted (and they should thank the stars they have as little screen time as they do). As for Aaliyah, sorry to say she's no heat and all hot air as the title character, though she still fares better than Townsend. The script does none of them any favors--it's highly pedestrian and extremely sloppy. To say that the film is bad would give one the impression that it has room to maneuver as at least a guilty pleasure--uh, I don't think so.
| 
