User Score
7.8

Generally favorable reviews- based on 181 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 30 out of 181
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. MartinB.
    Feb 25, 2006
    4
    Having read all the Vampire Chronicles, you can easily follow the story in Queen, but that's one of my problems with this movie. Unless you have read the books, all the motivation for the characters is missing. Lestat's reasons for going centre stage with the band, Akasha's motivation for rising and killing the vampires and the men (not people, as depicted in the movie, but Having read all the Vampire Chronicles, you can easily follow the story in Queen, but that's one of my problems with this movie. Unless you have read the books, all the motivation for the characters is missing. Lestat's reasons for going centre stage with the band, Akasha's motivation for rising and killing the vampires and the men (not people, as depicted in the movie, but just men), I could go on. In essence, it's all just a bit of flashy vampire camp without even a hint of the depth of the novels. I would love to see someone do a proper Vampire Trilogy, which treats the story with respect. So, if you haven't yet read the books, get to it :-) Expand
  2. Wendy
    Oct 21, 2002
    5
    The movie on it's own was really good. But following the Ann Rice novels, this movie sucked. It DID NOT follow the story, They screwed everything up. They twisted it to meet theur own wishes and completely ruined the story. It should never have been titled after the book because it has hardly anything to do with it. Lestat did not make Jessie and Marius did not make Lestat. Armand The movie on it's own was really good. But following the Ann Rice novels, this movie sucked. It DID NOT follow the story, They screwed everything up. They twisted it to meet theur own wishes and completely ruined the story. It should never have been titled after the book because it has hardly anything to do with it. Lestat did not make Jessie and Marius did not make Lestat. Armand does not have blonde hair and they completely left Louis and Gabrielle out of the movie. They could have at least put them in at the end like they did all the other vampires that they DID NOT identify. Ann Rice should never have allowed this movie to be named after one of her best books. Expand
  3. KayuH.
    Oct 20, 2002
    5
    The plot was very bad I think..the queen had almost no powers at all. Lestat cannot be bigger than Elvis with that kind of music alone, don't like Stuart at all. but I totally loved Marius and Armand. I realize that they cut most of the part where the ancients show up. how sad.....
  4. PeytonK.
    Oct 6, 2002
    5
    Queen of the Damned was filmed wonderfully - Most of the actors were great - including the "new" Lestat. But even that couldn't help the fact that the movie was changed so much that it really wasn't Ann Rice's work anymore. I don't know WHY it was done because: 1) anyone that read the books, knows the movie was TOO different from the book - it just made the movie too Queen of the Damned was filmed wonderfully - Most of the actors were great - including the "new" Lestat. But even that couldn't help the fact that the movie was changed so much that it really wasn't Ann Rice's work anymore. I don't know WHY it was done because: 1) anyone that read the books, knows the movie was TOO different from the book - it just made the movie too confusing. 2) I feel sorry for anyone that saw the movie and did not read the book - the movie made absolutely NO sense. Some of the characters were unrecognizable - such as Marius - he was a blond, blue-eyed ancient vampire - who did NOT make Lestat. But the movie portrays him as a dark, rather evil vampire who was the maker of Lestat. Also the ancient twins were not in the move - without them, the meaning of the entire movie went down the drain. Also, Jessie and Lestat were never in love - Ann Rice's book really deserved better. Well, at least better screen writers. The movie felt hollow and somehow vacant. It's such a pity. Expand
  5. MichaelC.
    Apr 8, 2002
    6
    Queen of the Damned could well start a new genre: campire. This is a mix between a camp movie and a vampire film. While this film's predecessor "Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles" took more insight into what it is to be a vampire and made the story very believable, Queen of the Damned is vamp camp that serves no real purpose except to entertain. This isn?t going to Queen of the Damned could well start a new genre: campire. This is a mix between a camp movie and a vampire film. While this film's predecessor "Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles" took more insight into what it is to be a vampire and made the story very believable, Queen of the Damned is vamp camp that serves no real purpose except to entertain. This isn?t going to change your life or win any Oscars, but you?ll probably find yourself thoroughly entertained when it?s over. The movie had lots of thorough good points: sound and sound editing, acting, direction, pace, chilling effects and heaps of cool settings. However, it received bad word of mouth and I don?t really understand why. The movie clearly wasn?t made to be the next Citizen Kane, and that?s what I thought when I went into this film. I was thinking to myself that for sure the movie isn?t going to be perfect or a next Citizen Kane on those grounds and it isn?t. But it exceeded my expectations and turned out to be a fun flick. Queen of the Damned will make a lot of money due to Aaliyah?s death. Her character isn?t in the movie as much because she died tragically before the end of the shooting, but I really don?t understand what everyone is whining about. We get enough of her. She is in the movie for over 30 minutes. Okay, we don?t get as much insight into Akasha and we don?t get as much of Aaliyah as some may have liked, but we get her in the middle and end, and that?s how the story goes in the book. So why the whinging? Speaking of Aaliyah, I would just like commend the now deceased actress-singer for her excellent performance. She pulled it off like I never could?ve imagined. It turns out Aaliyah really studied into her character; her screen presence is terrific. She also has a fabulous vampire-esque accent, she preys and pounces very well and, my favourite personally, the way she moves as Akasha is breathtaking. From dancing sensually, flying and just plain walking every way that Aaliyah moves is arousing, erotic, scary and very monster-like. It is a shame such an extraordinary talent died at such a young age. Hell, if Aaliyah hadn?t died we could be hanging out for her on Oscar night in years to come! Halle Berry did it, why not Aaliyah? As for her supporting actors, Stuart Townsend was also very good. His accent was a little irksome at times but I very much enjoyed his monologues and expressions. Margeurite Moreau looks like a cross between Frances O?Connor and Mira Sorvino and I really liked the way she acted. She isn?t as spectacular as the two actresses I just mentioned but just quietly she has talent. Vincent Perez gives my second favourite performance of the film (2nd only to Aaliyah). He is perfect for the role of Marius and I would love to see him take more monster-like characters. I am not really sure why the heck Lena Olin was in here in the first place, but this role is just far too easy for her. The direction and editing of the movie is similar to The One, except it fits the atmosphere better. There is a lot of usage of slow motion and zoom shots, but unlike in The One, they aren?t overstylised so much. It actually looks really cool the way the vampires blur through the air as they fly. The interesting special effects don?t bring anything new but I enjoyed seeing some cool techniques used in the film. This movie won?t disappoint horror gurus either. It has a heart being ripped out, beheadings, truckloads of blood and guts, and plenty of other things to satisfy all teenage guys. Speaking of teenage guys or any guy out there for that matter, Aaliyah is a doll to look at in this film. She wears very short and sexy costumes (done very appropriately by "Moulin Rouge" designer Angus Strathie) and shows off her body a lot. She gets to wear a lot of makeup too. Stuart Townsend is shirtless for at least a quarter of the movie for the ladies. I have mentioned nothing bad about this film yet. It is not by far perfect. It has its flaws. The script doesn?t have enough meat to it, and neither do the characters. I would?ve liked to learn more about Akasha and less about Lestat in this movie. In "Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles" Lestat was developed to 3-dimensional and I would?ve liked to learn more about the title role. The romance story is pretty much just chucked into the movie without chemistry or development either. Also, the humans in the film sometimes do stupid things. Margeurite Moreau?s character at one point goes into a bar infested with vampires who can probably smell whether she is one of them or not. And at the rock concert wouldn?t the audience be starting to get a little freaked out when audience members suddenly go flying out of the ground and start fighting with the man on stage? Even if it was a concert where anything can happen, even I could?ve noticed that there was something fishy going on and better get out of the place, fast. The mortals barely move when a vampire is on them, when they should be running like heck. Also one thing that is reasonably common in all thrillers lately, the ending sucks! The ending for this movie just didn?t do it for me. It was repetitive and the scriptwriters could?ve come up with something far more charismatic and original. Or could they? This movie turns out to be an above-average movie with a few flaws (some intentional) and a couple of silly turns. For all its mistakes though, the entertainment value remains. I guess the best way to sum up Queen of the Damned is that it is like an extended rock music video: extremely loud, slick, cheesy, flashy and yet still so fun you can?t help but sing along. My rating for Queen of the Damned is a B- or 6.5/10. Expand
  6. LuzC.
    Oct 4, 2003
    5
    Ok, I saw the movie Queen of the Damned aftering reading the book and as an Anne Rice Reader, I was disappointed and also at the same time amused. Reasons why, because I am a picky person when a movie is based upon a book. And I know the movies usually are not like the book or people state that the book is better then the movie. Whatever the case, if the movie was based on its own, and Ok, I saw the movie Queen of the Damned aftering reading the book and as an Anne Rice Reader, I was disappointed and also at the same time amused. Reasons why, because I am a picky person when a movie is based upon a book. And I know the movies usually are not like the book or people state that the book is better then the movie. Whatever the case, if the movie was based on its own, and not to a book, I would have really really liked it. But since I am a critic and I read the vampire series and I saw the movie that was supposed to be about the book, I was not amused. The Books plot was about Lestat waking up Akasha after those centuries and her going on this rampage of killing mortals and immortals alike. Her plan was to root out the male and leave the female because the Males did such violence to women such as rape, murder, etc. She took Lestat to help her when she traveled over to Europe, Middle East and Carribbeans. Then she comes to the other vampires. (Daniel, Armand, Marius, Louis, Gabrielle, etc) and asks them to side with her. Of Course same time all vampires or some at least like Baby Jenks have these dreams about "The Twins" Who are Maharet and Mekare. While the vampires are conversing and arguing, Mekare finally appears, abolishes Akasha by cutting off her head by glass and she becomes the Queen of the Damned. The movie: If I had never read the book and just came to see the movie I would 1.) Think of it as a teen movie. 2.) Not know why Akasha wants the other "Ancient" vampires to join her or the reason for her awakening and such. 3.)Who these Ancients were in the first place. 4.) Serious confusion on what the story was about, the Queen of the Damned or Lestat? Akasha was rarely in there except in the ends and she didn't last so long. Lestat has his life played out (Rather wrong too) before we even saw Akasha come alive. 1.) Marius does not make Lestat. That made me angry because Marius made Armand, Bianca, and Sybelle, Benji. Lestat was created by Magnus. Why did they have to change who made who for the movie? Why did they have to talk about Lestat in the first place if this movie was supposed to be about Akasha and Enkil's rule and domination over past and present (More Akasha) 2.) Nicolas. Now where was he? He did in a ways play (a none role) in the movie but a big part in the book. Well in "The Vampire Lestat", which comes again what story was this movie trying to tell? The violin that Lestat kept carrying around was to me symbolizing Nicolas well in all reality it was portraying that Gypsy girl at the beach. And she played a role on Lestat in his songs and the violin carrying. Apparently Nicolas was replaced by her in conclusion. 3.) The Twins. Where were they? They played a HUGE role in the book of "Queen of the Damned" Why didn't they in the movie? That could explain more on Akasha's past considering they were both alive in the same Era. By the way from not reading the book and just watching the movie, how much does one person know about the character Akasha? Not much expect she was greedy, non-respectful to the vampire code, ruled over Ancient Egypt with Enkil and then turned into a statue? Okay....hm...I would think we should know more about her and her position in the movie since it is about her, correct?At the end of the movie, Mekare was no where to be seen. At all. I do not understand why they only played Maharet. Seemed pretty pointless to me to keep only one twin and not the other, especially if the other killed Akasha and was the one giving the vampires the dreams in the first place. 4.) Jesse and Lestat. They never come together in the book, actually Lestat never makes Jesse into a vampire at all, her Aunt did, Maharet. Again, seeing how Maharet is in the movie, why didn't she just make Jesse a vampire like in the book. Magnus wasn't even in the movie so he can't make Lestat so ok, we have Marius do it. But Maharet was there. Did the movie makers wish to create a romance? Not sure. 5.) The journal. In the book, it is Claudia's journal and doll found, not Lestat's. 6.) Characters: Marius: When you first read about him he is really described as..Greek, pale, old in the face but youthful at the same time and with long ivory white-blonde hair. I am picky with characters in movies about books. I feel they have to look like what you were described from the book so it is like having the movie project what you should have imagined. Marius didn't to me. Marius was...practically almost no hair to me, brown, and ...not the Wise Teacher Marius you would all imagine from what you read from The Vampire Lestate, Queen of the Damned, The Vampire Armand, etc. Lestat: I do not care for looks on an actor. Let's get that out first. Stuart Townsend played a really good Lestat in..personality. But looks wise..no, not the beautiful violet-eyed reflecting Blonde of a Damned Rebel. He brought his own Lestat look into the movie which was fine and all. But it didn't look like Lestat. I didn't feel like the Lestat you read about or know from the novels. Like I said before, I like the screen to portray what the mind imagines from the novel description. Armand: He was blonde! This might sound funny but..I thought when I first saw the blonde looking..actor, the first name popped into my head was "Lestat" not all together but in hair like and posture. But I knew it wasn't and I felt it wasn't. Also I thought it was a female at first glance. Then I learned that the actor was playing Armand..the amber head Boticelli Angel. The Femine look was captured(Made me think he was a she at first) but come on, minor character or not. Armand has beautiful dark amber hair. Everything else was perfect. But the blonde was a complete 360 in appearance from the dark look of Armand. Pandora: She was alright, can't put into words what I didn't capture well with her but she didn't play a big part in the movie either. Khayman: Tall..and old looking (laugh,lol) not what I was picturing. Louis: Where was he exactly? Mekare: Where was she? Maharet: Red-head, ancient..good acting..a lot of make-up Gabrielle: Where was she? Didn't she help Lestat escape the concert after it was being Attacked by vampires. Alongside Louis who wasn't there either? Daniel: He didn't play a big role in the movie either actually he wasn't even in it at all but in the book he didnt as much, for they broke off into a section where it was in Armand's point of view and that was how Daniel was seen. Akasha: Nothing of what I pictured in my head about her but (Ali) Portrayed her really good as an Egyptian and dancer and seducer. Middle of Book: Lestat meets with Armand with his Mother, Gabrielle and that is how we learn about Marius. Movie: No Armand until the end, Marius MAKES Lestat and practically soon after he drinks Akasha's blood. No Mother. Conclusion: Overall the movie was ..ok..not the best movie/book based deals but it was alright. I still believe they should have not combined The Vampire Lestat with Queen of the Damned because you get a mess of things, you disappoint the readers when the characters are not respected nor are they brought in correctly (referring to who makes who a vampire type deal) Movies made about books are the worst I believe because you get a lot of critics you get a lot of "they should have done this, should have done that, that wasn't in the book, that is in the book but completely turned around) Expect that. And we all know that movies will not always be like the book, Take those Harry Potter movies. They are similar but they change some things. But they do not change something so dramatically that they have to continue changing the rest to make it fit. (Referring to the journal, the violin, Marius making Lestat, and the Twins) Once you change one important thing from a book, you have to change the others because they are all tied together. Also. I do not care on who is hot who is not in the movie. Because I read some of the comments saying "The movie was not good but Stuart was so hot so I give it a 10" I don't believe just because he was hot makes the movie all the better. But that is my opinion. I wish they did have Anne Rice involve because if I were her, I would feel very saddened to have my work torn slowly by the seams because it didn't make sense, I didn't understand the plot, the special effect could have been better. The casting I do not care about not bringing back Tom Cruise or Brad Pitt as Louis and Lestat, I wish they were but they both chose not to do a second movie about vampires prior to other promises and engagements. But casting could have been a little bit better as in..appearance, use wigs or make-up, small things you can fix not the actor/actress. The acting was good,Lestat was great, Marius was a litte more violent then in the book then one might think. Maharet was more..not included. Akasha was pretty much an alright but nothing to what I imagined in acting. (Ali) did well but I am not saying she did marvelous or excellent. But it was good. Like I said I am a picky person, I have read the books in the Vampire Series except Blackwood Farm, which I am going to begin sometime soon if I can. I tend to avoid the movies based on books but curiousity gets the better of me and I go only to be either satisfied or be really disappointed. The producer talked about how they didn't have time to explain The Twins or being in the minor characters..but then again they didn't have a lot of time to explain who Akasha was/is in the first place either. It was like a story about Lestat BRINGING UP TO Akasha.. Again.. They shouldn't try to combine two novels in a limited time without expecting a mess. That's about it :-D Later. From, Il Diavolo Expand
  7. ChrisD.
    Aug 26, 2005
    6
    The beginning of the movie was a mess. The effects were a little dated, but not terrible. The second half of the movie was almost the only part worth watching, too bad you need to see the beginning to understand most of it. Assuming of course, it still even makes sense.
  8. CodyB.
    Sep 28, 2002
    6
    This movie does have some good scenes to it but it does seen like its rushed a little..but i love the movie and i feel it deserved a 6..i love vampire tales and this one was definitly a good one.
  9. MemnochTheFallenAngel
    Apr 21, 2003
    4
    It doesn't respect the book. The characters aren't like their descriptions... Ok, they couldn't do the same as the book but...
  10. AllisonG.
    Nov 30, 2004
    6
    The movie was excellent. I loved it..but then again i didn't like it..lol..if that makes sense. It barely followed the book. It left out a lot!
Metascore
30

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 31 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 2 out of 31
  2. Negative: 14 out of 31
  1. Leaves us puzzled as to why the term "damned" applies at all, when vampirism is depicted as so cool, fashion-savvy and glamorous.
  2. At its best, Queen is campy fun like the Vincent Price horror classics of the '60s. At its worst, it implodes in a series of very bad special effects.
  3. 20
    "Queen" is a movie that stoops to jokes like calling Lestat's CD "a monster hit"; the movie is just a plain old monster.