User Reviews

Lestat de Lioncourt is awakened from his slumber and bored with his existence, has now become this generations new Rock God.

While in the course of time, another has arisen, Akasha, the Queen of the Vampires and the Damned.

He want's immortal fame, his fellow vampires want him eternally dead for his betrayal, and the Queen want's him for her King.

Who will be the first to reach him and Who shall win the final battle of the vampires and survive.......

There are some films that never need a sequel, despite the fact hat the first was based on a best selling collection. Interview With A Vampire was a phenomenal movie, and changed the way the vampire movie was imagined for a few years.

It was classy, sultry, and Cruise conquered the screen as Lestat.

So eight years later, this movie was as welcome as a hole in the head, and was just a blatant cash in for those good ol' greedy folk at Warner Bros'

I haven't read the scourge material, and forgive me if I'm wrong, but who in the right mind would bring back a very sinister signature character, and have him try to conquer his race by becoming a Rock Star.

In the hands of Rea, its possible that it could have been something, and he may have coaxed Cruise back in the title role, but no, we get an out of his depth Townsend trying to emulate the panache cruise had with ease eight years prior.

And despite his best efforts, it's no surprises that he fails, and the fact he is carrying the film only adds insult, the audience know he isn't Cruise, so detach away from him.

And I don't want to speak ill of the dead, but Aaliyah is awful in her role, and spends her screen time movie really strangely and hissing her lines.

It's a worthless sequel, most of the cast know this, and I feel sorry for Townsend, he's a decent actor otherwise.

I read all the books after seeing Interview with a Vampire and still to this day go on tangents about how poorly they cast Lestat in that film. I was a little scared of seeing this because of that but my fears went away after one look at Stuart Townsend. This man was born to play a vampire and played Lestat like he knew him intimately. I put aside the small differences in appearance and fell in love with the sharp wit that I have learned to embrace from this, unfortunately fictional, character. The movie was not named right and I was surprised that Anne Rice let the screenwriter change so much of the background story. Anyone who loves the chronicles will be able to sit and make a list starting with Lestat's real sire and the non-existent twins never mind the choice for Akasha, which WAS well performed. The movie is mostly Lestat (the book) but turns into a summarized version of The Queen of the Damned. If you are not a big fan of the chronicles of have not read them it won't matter to you. The story is good and the cinematography is top notch and Best part of all...Stuart Townsend is shirtless through most of it (which in my opinion could make a lesbian straight.) In short one of the best vampire movies but the novels are still better.

This film was basically set up for failure by the studio. One, Anne Rice (author of the book) offered to write the screen play but was refused by the studio. Two, they tried to stuff 2 in depth novels in to a 2hour movie.

I maintain the only way for these two books -Vampire Lestat and Queen of the Damned- to work in a live action form would be through a mini-series. First off the the Vampire Lestat alone takes place from the 1700's to the 1980's and has a plethora of character vital to the plot understanding of the main character, Lestat. The entire book Vampire Lestat sets up the events of the second part Queen of the Damned. Without that full understanding the premise of a movie is destroyed.

Lestat was not cruel and vicious to all, he was not wanting to go along with Akasha's plans, Marius did not make Lestat, Lestat did not love Jesse or make her, Lestat could not go remain unscathed by the light, Marius was not after David nor the other way around, every character was completely represented wrong, BASICALLY same names different story.

If they wanted to make a vampire movie, fine. Even if you wanted to be inspired by these novels, fine. But don't piggie back into the theaters off the success of Rice's great novels and characters just to destroy what her loyal readers have come to love.

If you haven't read the books you won't understand the film really, if you have read the books you will be insulted. That being said, I am such a huge fan I had to see the movie knowing full well this was going to be the case and still went for it. Catch 22, must see it, will hate it.

This movie was horrendous, and is definitely not worth your time, nor money. I must admit, this movie had potential, but in the end some major factors made this movie rot.

First of all, aside from probably the names of the character, this movie respected nothing of Anne Rice's enthralling book. Oh yes I know,to those who haven't read the book it doesn't matter much. But you see,it does because those who haven't read it are deprived of the depth of the characters, and their powerful inter-relations with each other and the whole 'human' aspect of the book. All of which made the book so appealing. The whole point of the book! Some characters were excluded from the movies, characters that carry import to the plot, such as Mekare, Maharet's twin and the sorrowful Legend of the Twins, Armand, Daniel, and Louis and Gabrielle, both Lestat's fledglings and lovers. Akasha had a whole maddened plan to bring peace on Earth. You see, Akasha isn't evil. She is simply single-minded and selfish, lost in her own reasoning. So many characters had so much to offer. And the movie failed to deliver that, which made the characters utterly one-dimensional, and not ones the audience can relate to. It stripped so much of the book, which saddens me, because believe me the book was wonderful. I find some scenes were completely irrelevant, and that they could have been replaced with some decent book-respecting ones. There were a considerable amount of factual errors.

Second of all, the acting and faulty accents was enough to make me want to cringe.

Also, the movie was too fast-paced. I know, I know, a movie cannot last eight hours to fully capture the profoundness of a character or action, but honestly! The whole Jesse/Lestat love affair could have blossomed if only they had some decent dialog and a little more time! It was like everything had to be hurried. A two-minute scene with Jesse and boom! He has a soft spot for her. Give me a break. Make it believable at least!

By the way, Lestat's singing was horrible. He sounded tone-deaf.

So I leave you with one advice: go to the library, loan the book and read it. Well I would advice you to start from the first tome ("Interview with the Vampire"). It is such a worthwhile experience to discover Anne Rice's awing piece of literature.

The soundtrack for this movie, made by Korn's Jonathan Davis, is fantastic! But that's all that's good about this film. From a purely film point of view there are a bunch of under-developed characters, plot holes, and it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It's not really surprising, since the director (Michael Rymer) has done nothing but 'B' movies, as have the two writers (Scott Abbott and Michael Petroni). I'm truly surprised that Anne Rice supposedly liked this film. If the screenplay had followed the book in any real way, the film would have been EPIC. No matter what the producers say on the official website, it could have been done right, as with The Vampire Lestat, if they had found the right writers and had actually wanted to work at it. But they were more interested in making a money maker, and so ended up with a movie on the threshold of 'B' movie, with a story that makes no sense, and actors that are only so-so. And some may say that the effects are cool, but I say they could have been a hell of a lot better. Especially given the fact that the film was made in 2002.

Now here are my biggest pet peeves about the movie:

1. MAHARET IS A TWIN! In the book she has an identical twin sister, Mekare, and they can both see and speak to ghosts. This is a very important fact as to how Akasha is made into a vampire. The Story of the Twins in the book would have translated fantastically into the movie. They are also very important as to how Akasha is killed. Both of them kill her, not just Maharet. And Maharet does not turn into a statue afterwards. She just goes on living.

2. AKASHA IS NOT African! Don't get me wrong, Aaliyah was very beautiful, was a good singer, and may have become a wonderful actress, but Anne Rice's Akasha was not African. Despite what the producers on the official site say is historical accuracy, it is not. Akasha was a princess from the historic city-state of Uruk, located in what is now Iraq. THIS is historical fact. Akasha would have looked Middle-eastern. Her husband, Enkil (who was sadly under-represented in the movie compared to the book), may have been African, since he himself was from Kemet (very ancient Egypt before it was known as Egypt). But Akasha was not. And I don't understand how in the movie Akasha and Maharet knew each other in the movie, since it is never explained. In the book, they meet in the ancient times, when they are both mortal, along with Maharet's twin sister, Mekare, Enkil, and Khayman, who was Enkil's steward. (Khayman was another destroyed character in the movie. He is also an important part to the creation of vampires.)

3. MARIUS DID NOT CREATE LESTAT! It was a vampire called Magnus, who kidnapped Lestat when he was a young man living in Paris. (This is in The Vampire Lestat.) Magnus then burns himself to death after creating Lestat, leaving Lestat on his own, with no idea what is going on. (Which is why Lestat says what he does in the movie version of Interview with the Vampire.) Marius does play an important role in Lestat's life, and IS the keeper of Akasha and Enkil, but he is not Lestat's maker.

4. JESSE IS NOT A 'COOL, HIP' TWENTY-SOMETHING THAT IS MADE INTO A VAMPIRE BY LESTAT! Yes, she is made into a vampire, but by a vampire called Mael, who lives with Maharet. Yes, she is a member of the Talamasca, because she can see ghosts like Maharet, but she is in her thirties, not twenties. Also, she is a direct descendant of Maharet and Khayman through about thirty generations. Confused? Well, in the movie, Maharet mentions something about the Great Family. Some may have interpreted that to mean the whole human family. Not so. In the book, the Great Family are the descendants of a child that Maharet had right before becoming a vampire, whose father was Khayman. Maharet protects ALL of them, which is why Jesse ends up with her at times when she is a child. Another cool fact about Jesse from the book: She goes to New Orleans and sees the ghost of Claudia from Interview with the Vampire.

5. AKASHA DOES NOT GO AROUND JUST KILLING ALL KINDS OF HUMANS. Yes, she does kill a lot of people, (and just about every vampire), but the humans she kills are MEN. And she doesn't kill them just for their blood. In the book, Akasha, while sitting on her throne like a statue, has come to believe that she is some type of goddess, and wants to rid the world of vampires (who can try to destroy her again as they tried to in the vampire wars of the ancient world), and of men, so that she can rule a peaceful society of women. She believes that all of the worlds problems will be solved that way. She takes Lestat to be her lover, and together they rid a couple of islands of all but a few men (for breeding purposes).

I have a bunch more pet peeves, but I'm running out of room. All in all, if you like the movie, fine. But do not assume that the movie is based on the book in anyway other than title, and the characters names. The actual book by Anne Rice is sooooo much better, and I highly recommend anyone who has seen the movie to read the book. With the book you will NOT be disappointed. (And for those who may have tried to read Interview with the Vampire after seeing the movie, and found it tedious, all the other Vampire Chronicles are a lot more entertaining. They don't read like Interview with the Vampire. Give them a try!)

Queen of the Damned opens with a tedious monologue by the Vampire Lestat De Lioncourt (Stuart Townsend) who basically says that he has been asleep for 200 years because he is lonely. However, it appears that the present day interests him enough to awake and forge a career as a rock star. He has become highly successful and openly admits he is a Vampire to the press, although nobody seems to actually believe him. He lives off the blood of female groupies that his Manager Roger (Tiriel Mora) picks up and brings him. A woman named Jesse (Marguerite Moreau) who works for 'Talamasca Center for Paranormal Studies, London', listens to some of Lestat's lyrics and is convinced that he is a real Vampire because he talks of a pub called the 'Admiral Arms' and various other silly things. Jesse's friend and colleague David Talbot (Paul McGann) says that the organisation knows of Lestat and are already onto him. David gives Jesse Lestat's journal to read which chronicles Lestat's life, how he was turned into a Vampire by Marius De Romanus (Vincent Perez) and how he first came across the Queen of all Vampires, Akasha (Aaliyah) who was at the time some sort of weird statue. Jesse becomes obsessed with Lestat and heads to the 'Admiral Arms' in which she finds acts of Vampirism taking place. There she meets Lestat who lets her live. Lestat heads back to Los Angeles to prepare for a sell-out concert. Jesse follows him. It appears that most Vampires dislike Lestat for his high public profile, which is drawing unwanted attention to all Vampires and not just himself, and they want him dead. While in Los Angeles Lestat is contacted by Marius who he hasn't seen in nearly 200 years, he begins to fall for Jesse when they meet again and Akasha makes an appearance as she plans to wipe out the human race and rule the Earth with Lestat by her side as King and Queen! All this while trying to prepare for a big concert too! Will the Vampires successfully assassinate Lestat? Will Akasha wipe out the entire human race? Will Lestat turn Jesse into a Vampire and condemn her to eternal life as a blood-sucking Vampire? Who cares? Directed by Micheal Rymer I hated this film. This film isn't horror as far as I'm concerned. It's as much horror as a music video. The script by Scott Abbott and Micheal Petroni based on the Novels 'The Vampire Chronicles' by Anne Rice is an absolute mess. It tries to have various story lines going but forgets about them during the film, it also fails to juggle the various sub-plots so that I cared about or even remembered them. The flash back to Lestat's early years is almost redundant, Akasha's plan to take over the world isn't even mentioned until the last half an hour or so, Jesse at first is trying to track Lestat down as part of her job but that is also quickly ditched as she becomes the love interest, Lestat as a rock star is only really focused on during two scenes, there's a scene where Lestat and Akasha fly to an island and well, I'm not really sure as it's so choppy as to be almost incoherent and generally speaking there just isn't a single focused story going on. There is a typical Hollywood 'happy ending' that almost made me sick. It's really slow and boring too. There's no blood, gore, violence or Vampire action except a ripped out heart a bloodless decapitation and a couple of Vampire fights with awful CGI effects that are simply embarrassing to watch. Having said that I did like the way Akasha died, but it only lasts for about a minute so doesn't compensate for the lack of any decent horror throughout the rest of the film. The acting is poor and no one looks particularly interested, Aaliyah stands out as being as rotten and miscast as anyone else and she looks like she should still be in school! It's quite well made but for a film with a budget this big that's the least I expect. Just to round this terrible film of and add insult to injury is the soundtrack which features mind numbingly bad rock tracks throughout. I hate this film. Avoid if at all possible, you'll be glad you did.