Rating: 
Summary: TAKE UP ALOT OF TIME BUT AALIYAH'S ACTING FILLED IT IN[HERL
Review: THE MOVIE WAS KINDA OF DULL.THEY SHOW CERTAIN PARTS THAT JUST ARE SHOWING VAMPIRES WALKING.I NEVER READ AN ANNE RICE BOOK BUT THEY EXPLAIN THE BOOK ON THE DVD.I EALLY WENT TO SEE THE MOVIE BECAUSE OF AALIYAH.I THINK SHE DID A PERFECT JOB.WHOEVER SAY SHE DIDNT, YOURE LYING.AALIYAH WAS SWEET,DOWN TO EARTH,AND KIND.AKASHA WAS EVIL MEAN AND A BRAT.SHE BRUNG AKASHA TO LIFE.AALIYAH ONLY HAD A LITTLE TIME IN IT.THEY SHOULD OF EXPLAIN MORE THAT WAS IN THE TWO BOOKS.YOU HAD TO READ THE BOOK OR SOME TELL YO U ABOUT,THEN YOU WOULDNT UNDERSTAND IT TO FULLEST.THRE SO MUCH IN THE BOOK THEY DIDNT PUT IN THERE.IF THEY WOULD OF PUT MOST OF THE PARTS IN THE MOVIE OUT OF TH THE BOOK,IT WOLD'VE BEEN BETTER.
Rating: 
Summary: Queen of the Damned
Review: Give it a go; if you're an Anne Rice fan OF COURSE, if youre not a fan of the supernatural, youre better off staying away.As i say, "it's a video job",and i think for a vampire movie and the 'horror' genre, it is placed together nicely.
Stuart Townsend did FINE! I think Tom Cruise managed to portray Lestat's personality better, as the 'stubborn' and 'impatient' Lestat, but I liked them both. They deserve the credit.
If you don't like this film, you cannot possibly have liked interview with the vampire, i mean, come on! Theyre all vampires! That's vampire movies for you! And I think Lestat 'made' the film, really, i do! Aaliyah also played a marvellous role as Akasha.
Rating:
Summary: Lestat Rules!
Review: This movie was really entertaining and showed much more personality traits in vampires, instead of the pathetic excuses of movies were the teenagers go into the haunted house, find a vampire, scream and stab a stake in his or her heart. That is so boring and has been portrayed so many times it's obsolete. Stuart Townsend did a magnificent job at portraying Lestat and the movie has such a great Goth-riffed soundtrack.
The story starts out as Lestat rising from a long sleep in the earth because of the rock band playing in his old house waking him up. As the story progresses, Lestat makes music that revels vampire secrets, falls in love with Jesse, a paranormal investigator at the Talamasca, and Akasha the mother of all vampires rises from her six-thousand year long sleep because of Lestat's music. Aaliyah does a wonderful job as this character, and Stuart Townsend is, well hot to say the least.
I started reading Anne Rice's vampire chronicles series after I saw this movie and I became a little disappointed in it after I read The Vampire Lestat and Queen of the Damned. I really think the movie would have done better if they made two separate movies for the books instead of trying to combine the Vampire Lestat and the Queen of the Damned into one movie.
However, the movie is entertaining, it is interesting, but I wish they hadn't twisted the plot so much and followed the books better and actually included something about the history of the vampires. Interview With the Vampire was so much more accurate because they only used one book for the movie instead of combining the books. But it is still a good movie and you should at least rent it. I think the main reason they changed the plot was that they wanted Lestat to have some kind of love interest that wasn't himself, so they picked Jesse even though she didn't really have that much to do with him.
Rating: 
Summary: The saddest piece of trash ever to disgrace Hollywood
Review: I just saw this awful excuse for a movie, and I am going to try my best to keep others from making my mistake!
I have loved Anne Rice since shortly after Interview With A Vampire (the movie) came out. Tom Cruise's portrayal of Lestat, in particular, drew me into the story. Now, true, the character Louis was hard to get behind (accurate to the book; Louis IS kind of a whiner) and Antonio Banderas, though he portrayed Armand beautifully, was physically inappropriate for the role, and the end was a major departure from the book, but the movie held true to the general plot and personalities and feel of Anne Rice's world.
Not so with Queen of the Damned. It seems like the scriptwriters barely gave a nod to the plot; they borrowed the names of characters, but didn't even bother with their actual personalities.Lestat is a vampire. A self-proclaimed monster. He's not a nice guy. But he also drinks only the blood of the evil doer. I wouldn't call the poor girls he was chasing around in the movie evil doers. And Lestat is in love with humanity. Not just Jesse; he loves the members of his band, he loves David, he loves humans he comes into contact with. Humanity fascinates him
As a note, I do think that with a better script, and a better idea of what he was doing, Stuart Townsend might have been as good a Lestat as Tom Cruise; maybe even better. But for all of you teenyboppers out there who JUST LOVE STUART TOWNSEND OMG!!111!!, I'm sorry, but just because an actor is hot doesn't mean that any movie he does is good. Plus Lestat is blond. It seems like a silly thing to nitpick, but Anne Rice makes SUCH a big deal about it in her descriptions of him that it is in fact important. I mean, Tom Cruise dyed HIS hair for the role in Interview, and pulled it off quite well.
Then there's David. You don't see much of our boy David in the movie, which is ok. The little we saw of him, he was even well-portrayed. Except one little thing. Insiginficant, really, except that it's an essential part of the character. David is in his 70's. Hello?!
Then of course, there's Marius. What did these butchers masquerading as screenwriters do to our lovely artist, our Roman scholar? They turned him into some sort of ... villain! Anyone who has read Vampire Lestat would cringe... To someone who actually read the book ABOUT Marius, his portrayal was perhaps the most painful of all. And to clarify a few key plot points related to Marius; he is NOT Lestat's maker. Teacher, perhaps, friend certainly, but not his maker. Moreover, Marius was trapped under tons of ice for most of the duration of Queen of the Damned; trapped by Akasha when she escaped so that he would not be able to interfere.
And Akasha... Aaliyah was great as Akasha. She was just as I'd pictured her, and the only reason I gave this movie two stars instead of just one. But, for the record, Akasha and Enkil were not actually statues. Their skin looked like marble, but not their clothes or eyes or hair or whatever. They had color, but the morons who wrote the screenplay apparently missed this.
Jesse, along with Maharet and the other ancients, is such a two-dimensional character in this movie I won't even go into them, except to say that it's sad that such characters so essential to the plot were so ignored. Or, in the case of Mekare, Maharet's twin, not mentioned at all.
Now, a few notes about vampire lore. In the vampire club, when Jesse goes in looking for Lestat, claiming a relationship with the ancient Marius, one of the vampires tells her all of the ancients are dead. There is a reason for this belief. Just before Marius' time, Akasha and Enkil, her king, were dragged out into the sun by their keeper, in a bid to end their existence. While Akasha and Enkil only acquired a deep tan, because Akasha, who was the mother of ALL vampires, was burned, so every single other vampire was burned. New vampires were immolated; older vampires didn't die, but existed in agony. Vampires were nearly wiped out. Akasha's blood did NOT bequeath Lestat the ability to walk in the sunlight with no fear. If Akasha had actually walked into the sun, or through the fire, most of the vampiric population would have exploded into flame.
Last of all, worst of all, is the plot. The scriptwriters took the most insignificant scene and turned it into the bulk of the movie. Lestat's awakening and discovering of rock music isn't even IN Queen of the Damned, it's in The Vampire Lestat. Moreover, that and the later battle comprise of perhaps two chapters, one out of each book. And yet in the movie, it's more than three quarters of the story! The rich history of the vampires is never touched on, even though it's the bulk of the plot in the book. It's vaguely mentioned that whoever drinks the last drop of Akasha's blood won't survive, but not why; they don't mention that if Akasha dies, all vampires die. And where is Mekere, Maharet's dumb (as in, tongue was cut out, not as in stupid) sister, the one who eventually took Akasha's essence into herself? Where is Akasha's quest to eliminate most men, to elevate women and establish herself as their goddess? Gone. Not even touched on.
This was awful. If you'd never read the book, I can't understand how you could ever follow the plot, and if you did read it, the plot makes you want to rip your own eyes out to make it stop. Hot actors and flashy special effects are no replacement for vivid storytelling and deep characters. Don't waste your money, don't waste your time, DON'T watch this movie.
Rating:
Summary: let's smoke crack and cast some ugly people
Review: The guy who played Armand looked like a deformed potato. The casting must have been done blindfolded or while smoking some serious crack.
Rating:
Summary: Good and Bad
Review: It helps that I watched the movie before reading the book, otherwise I probably would have walked out of the theatre a few minutes into it. When I first watched the movie I only went to see it because I like vampires and other supernatural beings. I thought the movie was interesting and thought provoking with a somewhat original plot. There were either no computer graphics or they were so well done that you couldn't tell, from what I remember. The characters and plot were intriguing and fascinating, as well as being original and well thought up. After I read the book, I rewatched the movie, nitpicking every little detail of the film. Thinking why did they take out certain characters and scenes, why it just happens that most of the characters they cut out or remove lines from are bisexual, why they change almost the entire plot, why is it that no one notices that his "French" accent is completely fake, and so many other things. It is clear that the book is far better than the movie, with excellent writing, and wonderful characters. With the book aside, it was nearly a great movie, but not quite. It had a few silly, corny lines, and scenes that bugged me. Other then that, I thought it was a good movie.
Rating: 
Summary: Pathetic.
Review: This film is a horrible attempt at bringing 'Queen of the Damnded' (and 'The Vampire Lestat') to the big screen. Not worth even renting this pathetic film is literally only saved by Townsend's looks! The book is a stunning peice of written art (both of 'em: tVL and QotD) and I was horrified when I actually watched this. The few who say that Townsend is better than Tom Cruise are completely wrong as Cruise fits into the roll as the Lestat Louis sees in 'Interview with the Vampire'. I'll admit, Stuart is attractive but he just doesn't fit Lestat's character and I wanted to snap the DVD at many momentsduring viewing (I rented it. Pity, if I bought it I could return it and get my money back. Even though they should be paying us to watch this!). They missed out so much that the book offered. The character's like Daniel, Louis and even Mekare (who played a vital part in Anne Rice's 'Queen of the Damned') are missed out completely. They called it a sequal to the brilliant 'Interview with the Vampire' and then missed out Louis which, fans of the better film would be very angry about. Of the characters that did manage to keep their places I can't say much, as most of them only managed a few lines (three for Armand). There was no explanation to where Vampires came from which is a very important part of the book and the significance of the redheaded twins was never told either. The romance between Jesse and Lestat never existed in the book and Lestat is blond. Marius didn't make Lestat and I could go on for hours but I hope that I have already convinced you that buying this a bad idea, Interview is much better film, watch that instead. The books are much better than either film even it I do love the movie Interview with a Vampire.
Rating: 
Summary: Not the Best Adaption in the World but............
Review: Ok, I'll admit it. Like all critical fans of the the Vampire Chronicles. I cringed at this "adaption" of such a lush and wonderful book when I saw it at the movie theater and was so close to leaving in the middle of it. There were even parts so corny and unnecessary that I flat out laughed at the screen. (Believe me there are TONS of them). However, months later when I saw the dvd, I made the only conclusion necessary for people who are fanatics of the books to enjoy the movie. It may seem tough to hear, but it's the only way not to throw stuff at the screen. Just pretend that this ISN'T an adaption of a great novel and you will probably be fine. Well if you think of it, about 95% of this movie didn't even HAPPEN in the book. Ok, sure names from the book are mentioned and some parts of the book are present like the rock concert, but just because this isn't a good adaption of the book means that it's a bad movie. To me, at least, this movie had the best soundtrack I've ever heard in a "horror" movie. The atmosphere was pretty spooky and some of the vampire effects were pretty good eye candy. Personally, if you love to laugh at "bad b-horror flicks" like on Mystery Science Theater 3000, this movie is perfect for you. Yep yep, #1 on my unintentional comedy list. Ok, yeah I was disappointed that the director didn't give a 100% effort on this movie and I was disappointed that this isn't a continuation of the far superior movie Interview with the Vampire (in fact there is not even a sign that this story ever existed in the Queen of the Damned movie) but I try to see the Queen of the Damned movie on a level of its own. So if you're looking for a "sequel" on the same level of its predescessor, don't expect it. I you're looking for a 100% adaption of the book, never expect it. If you are looking for a good Saturday night b-movie flick......SEE IT!!!!! If you have this simple expectation, you won't be disapointed.
Rating:
Summary: Please stop!!!!
Review: Well this review is not about the movie.I am a Rice fan and no it was'nt as nearly good as it should have been.This review is more of me saying to people....LESTAT IS NOT A GOTH ROCKER.He is not playing gothic music,he is not goth,and Hollywood once again failed in portraying the gothic people once again.I don't know of any gothic people myself who listen to Korn or Disturbed.Lestat was a rocker that's all.
Rating:
Summary: why bother?
Review: Why bother? I was a huge fan of the series of books written by Anne Rice. I was a big fan of this book's predecessor, Interview with the vampire. This film I could not enjoy. Maybe that's because I could not see it as a separate thing...I could not view this film without comparing it to the book, which, to be honest, is an impossibility anyway...it is too remote from it.
Stuart Townsend's acting is horrible, the music doesn't quite fit the story and the special effects weren't up to par. And I'm not even going into the story, which was raped so heavily that it's unrecognisable. Apart from that, I didn't even find it enjoyable as a standalone movie. The verdict? Leave this one well alone, especially if you're an Anne Rice fan
|
