Warner Bros. Pictures | Release Date: February 22, 2002
8.0
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 119 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
88
Mixed:
15
Negative:
16
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
2
TinaRBJan 5, 2009
I'm trying to think about anyhing good about this movie. But I can't come up with anything. maybe the violin scene. The film is quite pathetic, far far aways from the book. Like a You tube spoof version of the book.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
Akane1412Apr 7, 2009
As a great Anne Rice fan, watching this movie made me so mad.... The first time I watched it, I hadn't yet read the book and I hated it. Thought it made no sense and that the lack of Louis and how Lestat acted and looked seemed to have As a great Anne Rice fan, watching this movie made me so mad.... The first time I watched it, I hadn't yet read the book and I hated it. Thought it made no sense and that the lack of Louis and how Lestat acted and looked seemed to have nothing to do with the movie I had loved, "Interview with the vampire" made it hard for me to believe it was connected at all... Once I read the book and wanted to re-watch the movie ... big mistake. I hated it even more than ever before. I was shocked that apparently the one to make Lestat had been Marius, that Jesse or whatever seemed to have taken over Louis role, that Marius looked like an uggly 40 years old soldier or something. That hair... gah. Armand had like 2 minutes of screen play and one sentence without any reference at all ever to his name. It's like he never existed even... and worse of all, what really killed it for me... The violin had belonged to a gipsy girl? WTF? Were they just denning Lestat's love? Or is it just that Nicholas didn't deserve any mention at all? I was hurt. I love Nicholas and I was offended, it's like Queen of the damned and The vampire Lestat are all about straight vampires or something. Seriously, change the hair of characters, reduce their role... whatever, that happens with movies. But to act as if a certain character never existed and replace him? I hate that. It's not even like Nicholas was a small character on The vampire Lestat... Gah, worst movie I ever watched. Even refused to buy the DVD at damn cheap price months ago... I don't want anything to do with that thing. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
HarleyDSep 13, 2007
If you've read the book, which judging from your comments i'm assuming most of you haven't, you'll understand why this movie was an utter disgrace, not only to the Vampire Chronicles, but to vampire movies in general. If you've read the book, which judging from your comments i'm assuming most of you haven't, you'll understand why this movie was an utter disgrace, not only to the Vampire Chronicles, but to vampire movies in general. Especially considering they completely cut Maharet's sister from the movie when she had the key role in the end. The writers completely messed up the story, and strayed from the book itself. Sure there may have been parts in the movie that were similar to the book, but in the long run, it was pathetic. and not to mention the characters in the end that ended up killing Akasha were strangers to the movie and made no sense what so ever. leaving out so much of what i feel the need to say, this movie was CRAP. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
GermanBNov 21, 2008
The movie by itself was not bad, yet it was an insult to Anne Rice's vampire chronicles. The storyline was messed up, the main character story was almost completely changed, and as a final shallow comment, the vampire Lestat has thick The movie by itself was not bad, yet it was an insult to Anne Rice's vampire chronicles. The storyline was messed up, the main character story was almost completely changed, and as a final shallow comment, the vampire Lestat has thick blond hair and not brownish as the actor on the film. I liked it as a film, but I hated it, and still hate it. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
prodigyfn1May 28, 2012
This is a delightfully horrendous B movie. I was awaiting the appearance of Bruce Campbell the entire time. Unfortunately, he doesn't show up...maybe in the sequel.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
0
diankathrinaJul 12, 2013
well.. just re-read the novel again after a long time after my first book of it got caught in the house fire.. and.. still.. I am extremely upset on how the movie went.. How I wish there was a remake of this with the characters "SOMEHOW" evenwell.. just re-read the novel again after a long time after my first book of it got caught in the house fire.. and.. still.. I am extremely upset on how the movie went.. How I wish there was a remake of this with the characters "SOMEHOW" even matching of those in the Book.. seems like the only things they got right here are the names of the characters.. But not their soul or their characteristic at all.. **sigh** so sad.. If I were Anne Rice, I'd send the makers of the movie in jail for ruining 1 of the best masterpiece ever.. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
BerCJun 10, 2016
The artistic medium of film is very subjective. Every audience member has a different set of criteria they use to measure their viewing experience. Not everyone shares the same set of criteria. If we did, what a bland and uninspired worldThe artistic medium of film is very subjective. Every audience member has a different set of criteria they use to measure their viewing experience. Not everyone shares the same set of criteria. If we did, what a bland and uninspired world this would be.

What I Personally Liked About "Queen of the Damned":
The very beginning of the opening credits over the stone statues set an incredible tone which, sadly, cannot be maintained through the rest of the film. It's such a shame that all hope is smashed so shortly thereafter once the narration of Lestat commences. Really, the only strong recommendation I can give that lifts this film up is the presence of the late musician Aaliyah embodying the titular role. The slinkiness she brings ensures that her character will be remembered long after the movie is over. Indeed, she carries with her an almost supernatural sensuality that few actresses possess. It is too bad there was not a better film to surround her torrid role.

What I Personally Disliked About "Queen of the Damned":
Stuart Townsend is supposed to be the centerpiece of this production. However, he is a pale imitation next to the maniacal impression left by his predecessor Tom Cruise. He is too dry and uninvolving. He simply exists as a typical vampire with none of the traits that made Lestat who he was in the first film. Almost every other major player in this movie (Marguerite Moreau, Vincent Perez, Paul McGann, etc.) is equally as terrible which is surprising consider how wonderful some of their acting has been in other features. This brings me to Lena Olin portraying Aunt Maharet. Lena, why were you involved in this motion picture? Seriously, you're better than this! (Think: "Romeo is Bleeding" and "The Unbearable Lightness of Being") What happened? Did you need the money? Were you locked in an ironclad contract? Let's move beyond the quote/unquote talent for a moment and take a look at some of the other elements of the film. "Queen" doesn't have half of the wit or the willingness to shock its audience with its warped perversity and unbridled carnage as "Interview With the Vampire." It feels like it's holding back; like it's a watered down rendition playing exclusively for the Hollywood executives and not for the same crowd that adored "Interview." They also combined elements from two Anne Rice novels instead of letting each one stand on its own merit in the cinematic world. By cherry-picking certain elements from the pair of books, the filmmakers proved they had absolutely no understanding of the source material. The lack of any real cohesion between "Queen" and "Interview" is more fuel on that fire. Why piggyback on the shoulders of greatness if you are going to be so disrespectful to both the previous film and the novels on which this entry was based? Some of the special effects are simply atrocious as well. It's hard to believe this film was released eight years after "Interview" when its effects look like they were created eight years before its predecessor. A lot of the visual tricks used are amateurish at best (the "fast motion" of the vampires) or outright headache-inducing at worst (the "vampire mind flashes" Lestat has when he connects with Akasha and the slow motion walk between Lestat and Jesse). Finally, the generic hard rock music sprinkled throughout the picture. It's faceless. It's toneless. It's soulless. I didn't realize "plastic metal" actually existed until I saw this film. And I thought Guns N' Roses's version of "Sympathy for the Devil" was horrible from "Interview." Ha! That was not even close to the rubbish this film presents to us.

My Overall Impression of "Queen of the Damned":
Between the glossed over combination of two novels serving as one film, special effects that look like they were crafted from eighties' nerds using a Commodore 64, and a cast list that plays like the rejects from a bad romance novel, this less than thrilling follow-up to "Interview With the Vampire" should have been shelved in developmental hell where it belonged. It's hard to believe there are worse films in existence than this one...but there are.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews