10 of 12 people found the following review helpful
The saddest piece of trash ever to disgrace Hollywood,
This review is from: Queen of the Damned (DVD)
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.