Queen Of The Damned Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
The Mother Of All Vampires
All She Wants Is Hell On Earth
This time there are no interviews.
After many years of sleeping in his coffin, the vampire Lestat awakens only to find that the world has changed and he wants to be a part of it. He gathers a following and becomes a rock star only to find that his music awakens the ancient Queen Akasha and she wants him to become her king...
| Aaliyah | Queen Akasha |
| Stuart Townsend | Lestat de Lioncourt |
| Marguerite Moreau | Jessica 'Jesse' Reeves |
| Vincent Perez | Marius de Romanus |
| Paul McGann | David Talbot |
| Lena Olin | Maharet |
| Christian Manon | Mael |
| Claudia Black | Pandora |
| Bruce Spence | Khayman |
| Matthew Newton | Armand |
| Tiriel Mora | Roger |
| Megan Dorman | Maudy |
| Johnathan Devoy | James |
| Robert Farnham | Alex |
| Conrad Standish | T.C. |
| Michael Rymer |
4.60 out of 10 (14219 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Good Actors and a Killer Soundtrack do not a Great Film Make
posted on 26 Aug 2009I have been following Anne Rice's books for the better part of a decade, and if am disappointed with this adaptation of Queen of the Damned, I cannot begin to imagine the disappointment of the real purists who have been reading since the appearance of Interview With the Vampire in 1976.One could forgive the executive decision to combine and condense the books The Vampire Lestat and Queen of the Damned if certain key plot elements had been retained. It certainly makes for a smoother plot to shift the credit for Lestat's creation onto Marius; after all, it gives the viewing audience a much more credible motive for Lestat's seeking him out, at least more credible than an insane vampire "turning" Lestat and immediately immolating himself. But what is completely irreconcilable in such a compaction of two novels is the altering of the protagonist's basic character. Lestat, in his own words, prefers to feed on evil low life types. It is just this predilection which sets into motion the events of Memnoch the Devil. And yet we see him preying on the innocent at least twice in this film.And what have we lost in this foul and pestilent congregation of vapours? The story of Lestat. Allusions through wolfskin rugs just don't cut t. -- Marius and the making of Armand; the mystique of "Those Who Must be Kept" and Rice's take on the true origin of vampires, a good story in itself set in ancient Egypt. -- Lestat's friend Nikki and the origin of the Theatre des Vampires; and, integral to Lestat's character, his struggle with the concept of the world as a Savage Garden.To me, it's a terrible tragedy that movies like this make it to perhaps a much wider audience than the books they're based on. The Vampire Chronicles have established Anne Rice as a crafter of stunning prose filled with sumptuous imagery, and horrors that are not so much visual as they are emotional and spiritual. Those of us who know her characters long for more of her stories about them, and to us, this movie is a rude insult.
An insult to Anne Rice
posted on 26 Aug 2009When the 90+ minutes of this drivel ended, I felt slighted. I felt as if I had been cheated of my matinee $5. As an avid fan of the Vampire Chronicle books by Anne Rice, I wonder how she ever allowed her name to be put on such complete and utter crap.The absolute plot inconsistencies are completely ridiculous. It is as if the writers took the book, read it, and threw it out the window before beginning the screenplay. I would understand some small omissions in order to condense a long book into a movie, but drastically changing the integral plot points (such as individual vampires' makers, lovers, and friends) is completely inexcusable.There were only 2 things that I can even imagine complimenting in this movie. First, the soundtrack. With bands like Disturbed, Orgy, and Korn on board, the driving rock of The Vampire Lestat was perfectly set. Second the performance of Stuart Townshend was terrific. As I read the books, I formed a mental picture of Lestat. Tom Cruise wasn't it. Stuart Townshend was. From the patterns of speech to the latent sexuality, to the dark beauty, he was everything Anne Rice described in her hero Lestat. Townshend's acting was the only reason I gave this a 2 instead of a 1.
Movie of the damned
posted on 22 Aug 2009I was very much in anticipation of this movie, as I am sure many fans of Interview With The Vampire and fans of Anne Rices Vampire Chronicles where alike. But it was a big disapointment to me. First of all when I heard Stu Townsend was playing the role of Lestat, I was thrilled, I have seen him in a few movie's and knew he was a great actor, sure I was disapointed that Tom Cruise didn't return to reprise his role as Lestat, but now I have seen the movie I'm glad he didn't. Because this movie sucked, literally!The Queen Of The Damned and The Vampire Lestat were both amazing books, giving so much insight to the background of the vampires, the character of Lestat, the Talmasca and of course of Akasha. The movie just makes it all seem so trivial. Here is what is wrong with the movie in my view...Number One - The film contradicts the first movie, and the book where it states that Lestat isn't sleeping long before he is woken by the band, the book clearing states that Lestat slept for years, Interview With The Vampire tells us that Lestat took over where Louis left off with Daniel, the Interviewer, what happened after that, in respect to the second movie? It's anybodys guess! My best guess is that they never planned on a sequel.Number Two - In QOTD Lestat was made by Marius, lestats maker was Magnus, who killed himself in flames straight after making him.Number Three - What makes Lestat so damn conscious of his behaviours? The Lestat we know and love is cruel, the lestat we know, gives Louis a hard time, he is a cold blooded kills who steals even the innocence of children. On the beach in QOTD he is told by Marius he has a few lingering human emotions and that is why he feels bad for killing the girl, are they still lingering at the end of the movie, hundreds of years later when he takes pity on Jesse?Queen Of The Damned could have been such a good movie, if they had stuck to the lines of the book more, and made it a longer movie with more detail, not just 1 Hour and 40 Minutes of a spoilt child trying to get his own back on his brothers and sisters.
Did they even read the book?
posted on 04 Aug 2009I must say that I was very disappointed in this movie. When a movie is supposed to be based on a book I expect a little more in common then the name. I think that this movie had a chance to be a great one, but they took a little too much artist freedom. As a fan of the book I was taken back by how much was wrong with this movie. If you are a fan of Anne Rice and her books then I do not recommend this movie. If you are looking for a ok vampire flick then you might be interested in this movie. I give Queen of the Damned a 3/10
My opinion on the movie ''Queen of the Damned''
posted on 27 Jul 2009The movie is very good, i loved it, but it doesn't compare with the book.The role of Lestat was very well played by Stwart Towsend, i simply fallen in love with this actor even if is the first movie in witch i saw him.Aaliyah was also very good in the role of Akasha The Queen of the Damned.The part of the movie that i liked very much was the concert scene when Lestat sings on the stage and the scene when he fights all those vampires beside Marius the older vampire.I hope all of Anne Rice's book will be movie subject because she was a very good writer. This is all i had to say . Goodbye
terrible
posted on 25 Jul 2009This was the worst movie I have ever seen. Expecting a continuation to the wonderful Interview? Then stop at the opening title. The plot was incoherent, the dialog was no more than blubbering, and the actors were jokes. The books were wonderful. This movie definitely does not follow Anne Rice's writings. Set this aside and you still have one monstrous disaster of a movie.This movie was an example in how to milk more dollars out of an unassuming public by leaching off the name of a hit.This movie was so bad that I haven't paid for another movie in a theater since... and this has been several years. I know it's not fair to the other multi-million dollar movies out there, but it left a sour taste in my mouth.Ignore all advice to "Just Have Fun" with it, this is what robs us of our intelligence. If you choose to see this film, be critical. I'm sure you'll agree that it was a disaster and a waste of our monies.
oh dear, oh dear, oh dear....
posted on 23 Jul 2009This is the most recent adaptation of Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles. Lestat has arisen after a hundred years of 'sleep' to become a rock star. His music reveals names and secrets of Vampires the world over, enraging the entire vampire community. Akasha, the mother of all vampires, has been awoken from her sleep by Lestat's music. She decides to make him her consort and resume her rule as Queen of the Damned.Firstly, Michael Rymer needs to be chased naked through nettles by a pack of rabid dogs. Secondly, When Anne Rice offers to do your screenplay for free, ACCEPT! Then you might end up with something that amounts to more than a prolonged music video for a very bland and childish character. And that's what Stuart Townsend's Lestat is. Yes, he's gorgeous, and OK, his Creole accent's passable, but how do you follow on from one of the most amazing portrayals of Anne Rice's most beloved vampire? Quite simply you don't. (Tom Cruise spoils it for everyone again.) Bit of a shame, because Townsend does have his moments. He is very slick and sexy in the music video segments of the movie, but with dialogue as inane as this screenplay's it's hard to make a character believable when he spouts idiotic lines like "Boo Back…" not much of the sensuality, egotism or charm of the original character remains in this version – this time around, Lestat is a whiny, tantrum-throwing angry young man. And there's a big difference between hammy acting and lack of talent. So it's a bit of a shame the whole movie centres around him, really.Aaliyah's portrayal of Akasha is good, although she unfortunately does little more than squint in a sinister way, belly dance about in a small metal bra and set other vampires on fire. Aaliyah's acting – dodgy Egyptian accent aside – is probably the best in the movie, but again, she's that underused that her character loses her menace. After a while she's just this pissy bitch who wants her own way all the time. Which is a true shame as her motives in the book do actually have a point. And to say this movie's title is Queen Of TheDamned, said Queen is curiously shoved into the sidelines, and the movie becomes more about Lestat's rise to rock superstardom and his moral struggles. Akasha's attempt to regain her rule over the world of Vampires is almost an afterthought.The rest of the vampire alumni included in this movie were, on paper, really rather exciting (for a vampire novel-reading geek like me). Marius, Maharet, Mekare and Armand are all included (apparently) but harshly overlooked, and dismissively underused. No time is spent on these characters at all, despite them all being some of the most important in the story and for those who haven't read the books, there's probably a certain amount of who-the-hell-are-these-guys?-syndrome happening. It's almost like the writers took a pair of garden shears to the book, put it through a blender and then filmed what was left. Yes, the sets, costumes and makeup effects are good, the Death Valley concert scene is well done, but the whole movie dithers about for 97 minutes, unsure as to whether it's following the' Queen of the Damned' or 'The Vampire Lestat' plot lines. A tad ambitious I feel. And look what happened. The movie falls flat on its face with all it's glamour, black leather, body piercings and tattoos in a heap around it. And I just want to stand pointing and laughing.
queen of the damned
posted on 17 Jul 2009Queen of the damned is the best vampire movie of this decade with potential to be the best of the centry it has a more reality fealing then Blade and Dracula 2000. Stuart Townsend does a better portrait of Lestat then Tom Cruise did in Interwiew with a vampire. And it's Soundtrack is the best of all time thanks to Jonathan H. Davis from Korn
Fanatics have unfairly criticized this movie.
posted on 17 Jul 2009O.K., so it's been more that 10 years since I've read the chronicles, but I seem to remember "Queen of the Damned" as being my favorite and I thought that given the extreme pressures that were placed on the making of the movie (Aaliyah dying) it was worth seeing.So the movie took liberties with the book - big deal! If you want the book, go read it! If you haven't read the book, do so! The actors are near perfect visual representations of their parts. If you have read the book, then you should have been able to fill in the parts that were missing and enjoyed the film for what it was. The movie inspired me to re-read the books.All in All, it's worth the rental. It's a good story; and, it's not a bad movie.
It sucks
posted on 13 Jul 2009Okay, so I know that my expectations shouldn't be that high walking in - it's never a good sign when the star of the picture describes his movie as being good for 'camp value' but jeez, this movie was awful. The story is basically: Vampire wants to be a rock star, vampire becomes a rock star, vampire kills the 5 other vampires on earth, queen of vampires comes back and has a thing for rock star vampires, on he likes two vampires and so on and so on...Yes Stuart Townsend is good looking, the music wasn't bad and the girl who played Jessie wasn't awful, but with horrible edits, laughable sound editing, and cheesy effects on-top-of paying $13 Canadian Pesos for a movie, well it really makes you wonder.
Wow...umm crap much?
posted on 13 Jul 2009Yea, I saw this movie back around the time Aaliyah had died. I really wish they hadn't dedicated this nonsense in her memory. We know she didn't finish the movie people, so why put it out there? To capitalize on the fact that she died? That's sick. The movie was ill put together and you could see it. Besides the fact that it didn't make any sense chronologically, it was just bad. I love Aaliyah, but she didn't do much by gyrate across the screen to bad 1980's MTV music. Her acting seemed overly done and cheesy. I hear she worked on having an authentic Egyptian accent, and that's all well and good, but it was just a bad part for her. Many fans of the book already have their issues with this movie and I don't blame them. Gotta remember though, Hollywood and books don't equal the same stuff. Anyways, it was just cheesy. It was a sick publicity stunt to sell this movie after the main character dies. Stuart was ok as Lestat, but I'm not into overdramatic vampires. And really, he entrances the world through his kind of music? Ok, and how much of the population doesn't listen to heavy metal/rock? It just seemed rather silly. I didn't mind the other sets of vamps around, but he annoyed and bored me. The girl who kept having the vamp dreams and wanted oh-so-desperately to be one was irritating beyond belief. Are we actually supposed to take her seriously? Um, yea ok...I mean really, we've given up on taking anything seriously at this point. Characterizations are moot. Not worth the time or the vision.
Good material which went to the wrong hands
posted on 05 Jul 2009I was, like, REALLY interested in this movie.Ever since I saw 'Interview' on TV, I was fascinated with the moral dilemma of Vampires and its dramatic possibilities. The story on which the movie is based on, is very interesting and offers a possibility of a dramatical, visually powerful Vampire flic.Well, and after that, most things went wrong.First of all, the script is BAD. Scenes which could be giving dramatic thrills are scripted to boredom or even TOTALLY OMITTED! Akasha's second awakening, for example, is brought into the story by Marius saying: 'Oh well, yeah, she just woke up, y'know...' This is NOT dramatic. In other moments, the dialogue is so stupid you don't have the slightest idea of what is going on, for example when the part with the Family Tree is 'explained'.Secondly, there are only two people in this movie which could be called 'actors' (Townsend and Perez) and they, well, 'do their best'. Aaliyah just shows her body and beckons around in her stupid accent and could as well just be replaced with an animated character from Final Fantasy. The rest of the actors are, on the main, forgettable. Marguerite Moreau simply makes you wanna run out of the cinema and does make you think about Lestat's motives: How can he want to spend eternity with this BORING BORING person? The actor quality does the part to the film which is the greatest sin for a movie wanting to have some drama: You don't care about anyone, except maybe for Lestat. Even the beach covered with corpses does only make you feel glad you didn't experience them alive, 'cos they probably would have been bad actors, too.I gave this movie 5 out of 10 because, well, Townsend tries REALLY hard, and I really liked the music part (Jonathan Davis does a good bit here). Besides, the scene with thousands of fans approaching the concert is stunning. The movie design is also very good.Well, maybe the next Chronicles movie is made by the right people. I DO hope so.
Rather average.
posted on 03 Jul 2009There pretty much isn't any plot to this movie untill Alayah arrives on screen. First half tells how Lestat came to be and a brief encounter with The Queen that lead to centuries of longing and lusting after her. Second half has Lestat going public as a vampire and The Queen reawakening to claim him as her king and her eventual killing spree.Stuart Townsend turns in a wooden performance and the first half is pretty boring. It takes off when Alayah arrives on screen. She has a very commanding pressence in this film, she pretty much saves this film. And what the film lacks in substance it makes up in style and fast paced editing. * * out of 4.
A Bit Of Everything
posted on 29 Jun 2009what is the point of this movie?, sure Aaliyah plays an extremely honourable role as Queen Akasha but the storyline seems a tad un-original. For some reason i love the awesome charisma it imposes in my mind. The most disappointing aspect of the feature film is that it "borrows" many ideas from other famous flicks (such as Rock Star, The Cell & concept of Buffy The Vampire Slayer).
Disappointingly without humour or plot or characters or etc.
posted on 29 Jun 2009Very disappointing - incomprehensible plot, no character development, cheesy vampire effects, and worst of all tedious.Only containing a shadow of the book, it gives practically no motivation for why any of the characters perform in the way they do.I didn't expect to see an Oscar winning performance, but the average episode of Angel had more style and Blade 2 more excitement.An expensive flop.
Why God?! WHY?!
posted on 27 Jun 2009Why 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.
Saw once and refuse to see it again
posted on 21 Jun 2009This is a horrible movie, especially for those who've read the novels the movie is adapted from (The Vampire Lestat and The Queen of the Damned). One: I can't believe the disregarded Anne Rice writing the screenplay, the morons, they were her books for pete's sake, vultures! Two: MARIUS!! Look what they did to him. Someone wrote that the actor nailed Marius, I think not!!! Marius is described as a blue eyed blond hair roman, that guy did not strike me as Roman! Plus Lestat first met Marius in Egypt, with his mother in tow. Marius made Armand not Lestat... Three: Lestat was made into a vampire by Magnus, who was searching for a blond haired blue eyed man. Also Lestat learned from Marius to seek out the evil doer, so that scene with the two girls and having his manager get them for him....CHIGAU DAI YO!!!!! (wrong) One in the book, I believe the manager was female and two He hunts on his own. Four: Jesse was made by Maraharet and Maraharet didn't become the next Queen of the Damned that was her twin, Mekare. Also the others didn't drink from Akasha. (Mekare ate the heart and brain of Akasha, taking in the spirit of Amel, who was a spirit of sorts who liked the taste of blood and knew Maraharet and Mekare first because they were witches). Five: David Talbot was in his sixties, seventies damn it all!!!(though he became a vampire in book four...in another body)I saw this movie once and I swear to never see it again. It was absolutely horrible and didn't do justice at all to the books it came from. Interview, was wonderful but this was just crap!!!! Hell they made the Harry Potter, and Lord of the Rings movies quite close to the books why couldn't they do it with this one!!!!
Damned good fun
posted on 19 Jun 2009As 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)
More boring than a documentary on yarn...
posted on 28 Aug 2009I don't want to be rude but this movie is more boring than a documentary on yarn. The acting was pretty good, considering that the supernatural researcher lady was in the Mighty Ducks. The "Queen" played by Aaliyah, sorry if I spelled that incorrectly, was pretty good by acting standards. Actually very good. The problem was it was so boring! The whole movie was so boring! I got some good sleep time though, it was daytime, and am usually scared by almost anything. I just fell asleep on this movie, literally. I would only recommend this movie cause the first five minutes are kind of cool.