Queen of the Damned (2002)

It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

I've watched it disregarding anything related to the books, therefore, I wouldn't judge the movie by any fidelity with the novels (I've read The Vampire Lestat but not Queen of the Damned). Having said that, it is indeed a bad movie. Bad acting, horrible visual and sound effects. Gutural sounds when biting, no blood after feeding, blur and trails behind the vampires movements. Interview with the Vampire was able to show very elegant special effects but this movie is hard to watch. It isn't a good movie even if measured only by it's story or if you don't care about the books.

It says on the front cover of the DVD of 'Queen of the Damned' that it is the sequel to 'Interview With a Vampire' – you remember that – the smash hit movie, starring Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt. Everyone loved that. It was a hit! Unfortunately, 'Queen of the Damned' is only a sequel as it's using some of the same characters (characters, not actors – there's a difference) and set in the same universe, so to speak. Basically, it's not really a sequel. It's another vampire story written by Anne Rice following some of the characters who you might have seen before. Don't expect to see Tom or Brad in this one.However, just because it doesn't really follow on, doesn't make it a bad thing – a disjointed thing, but not a bad thing. But, in some ways, it's not really the film's fault. It's about a vampire who has got disillusioned with drinking people's blood over the centuries and has gone to sleep for hundreds of years. Now he's woken in the modern age and decided to 'out' all the other vampires and their blood-sucking ways. It goes without saying that the rest of the vamps don't take kindly to his outspoken ways and decide to take him out. So where does the Queen come into it? She doesn't. That much. Unfortunately she's only in it for two scenes because the young actress playing her tragically died while the film was being made, leaving the story lacking what should have been a big part of its central element.Plus it doesn't really do the book justice. I haven't read the book. I'm one of the many who just watches the film, but I've generally browsed through enough internet message boards to realise that a lot of die-hard fans of the source material didn't appreciate the transition to film.So, it's got its fair amount of negative points. And yet it's actually quite good. Not great, but somehow highly watchable (if you're into vampires in general). It should all be quite campy and yet Stuart Townsend plays the lead vamp pretty well and is actually fun to watch. Aaliyah, for the few scenes she's in, sizzles as the Queen of the undead. It would have been pretty good if she'd have been able to show what she can do all the way through the film.It's probably not a film you're going to want to see again and again, but if you're not totally bored with vampires after binge-watching box sets of 'True Blood' then take a look at vampires rocking out on stage and fighting each other in the chorus.

The low score on here is not from a majority of 5/10 scores given by viewers after watching a borderline bad movie but much more a reflection of how passionately Anne Rice fans feel about somebody altering the content of their beloved Vampire Chronicles. This is no relation to Interview with a Vampire which was closely based on the book. Queen of the Damned is only loosely based on the original and there are some significant changes to the story and certain characters, even to the extreme of characters being left out completely.I myself am a huge fan of the books, but am also realistic enough to accept that the books contain such detail that they do not lend themselves easily to screen, except perhaps in the form of a film series such as The Lord of the Rings. So, as a stand alone vampire movie that is heavily influenced by the book, any grievances can be left outside.The film's story (spoilers!) in brief then, tells us about Lestat (Stuart Townsend), who has been at rest for decades but stimulated by the sounds of the time he rises, soon becoming the front-man of a successful metal band. Publicly admitting that he is a vampire and revealing vampire secrets within his lyrics soon draws the attention of the authorities, both of the living and the un-dead. It even wakes up the original vampire Akasha (Aaliyah), a very different creature to the rest of them, with near god like powers and an insatiable blood lust.We learn of Lestat's past life and of his creator Marius (Vincent Perez). We also meet a few of the other Ancients, namely Maharet, as the aunt of another main character, the Talamaskan Jesse who develops a fascination with Lestat. Jesse is the link the ancients have to the living but she soon becomes caught in the middle of the action.Marius therefore is a change from the book where he is not Lestat's creator, and the changes don't end there, however he is a compelling character and is well played by Perez. The plot is far from complex and has holes, but then it was never intended on being taken too seriously. Accept it for what it is and not what it isn't. It is not an accurate adaptation of the book to film, but as a stand-alone vampire movie inspired by it, what's left is a decent and entertaining vampire movie.The soundtrack of the movie is from Jonathan Davis of Korn, and other famous names from the industry including Maralyn Manson feature so the movie gives a very credible musical contribution from what is ultimately a fictitious rock band. This aspect is worth consideration after all, as if it had not been good, this film could have stunk!

Here is the thing about this movie. They get so much from the book wrong that you can't, and shouldn't, compare them. It isn't even on the same level as Interview with a Vampire and, again, should not be compared to it. If you want to watch and enjoy this film then you must take it as is. On its own. Or you will be angry, unsatisfied, sad, and lost. It is a beautiful film as just a film but as a film adaptation of a book it is the spawn of crap and the cousin of vomit. But again it is a great movie for itself and by itself. The actors did well for the script and description They were given and I honestly hope that in the future they will attempt to redo the vampire chronicles in film media again. But until then we have this to sedate our need to see the sexy brat prince.