MovieChat Forums > Queen of the Damned (2002) Discussion > Why all the hate?

Why all the hate?

posted 16 years ago by alidede
56 replies | jump to latest

I am a huge fan of the interview with vampire movies. Ofcourse Interview with the Vampire is my favorite and only considered true Vampire movie.

I didn't read the books yet but I enjoyed QOD. I think Stuart Townsend's performance was ok; ofcourse Tom Cruise's was much better but Stuart as Lestat I think was a success.

Anne Rice says she did not liked the movie and she thinks it is poorly acted. I think she just pissed that they did not stay true to the novel like the first movie.

I can agree that they should have not changed it and Anne Rice should have written the screenplay.

But I dont agree that it is poorly acted. Just evaluate shall we

Stuart Townsend as Lestat in my opinion was successful

Vincent Perez as Marius was perfect and even his character is true to the books

Lena Olin as Maharet, she was also very good choice couldn't acted more
beautifully.

Aaliyah as Queen Akasha, even though she had no experience as an actress, again in my opinion she really played well.

Hence, what do you think about the movie without having the prejudice of not staying true to the book.

ps: Soundtrack was really good.

[–] reaseltbim 12 years ago

I feel that I have a love/Hate relationship with this movie, I love parts about it but I really hate other parts about it too.

The biggest problem the movie has is not even the story (or lack thereof) but how Cheesy everything is. The acting is really really poor and cheesy sometimes, the one liners, the special effects are awful (when the vampires move fast)

the movie tends to be really cheesy and not take itself seriously, Which is a big mistake because the subject matter already is not as serious (vampire rock star)
my problem is that it feels that the filmmakers couldn't decide on the tone of the movie,
they couldn't decide whether to make it serious like Interview with the Vampire or Campy and fun, so you get parts of both and this ruins the movie.
Some parts of the movie feel serious and plot heavy, while other parts of the movie feel silly and over the top.
The movie could have been really good if they chose a more serious approach, not a campy one.
I'll look down, and whisper no

[–] Chili_Peppers 12 years ago

I don't think it's great by any means, and Interview is obviously better, but this isn't bad. Interesting story. I've never read the books but I do wish they had stuck with the original stories. It felt like two different halves squeezed together. Not bad though, and the fact that it's Aaliyah's last role makes it a must-watch.

5.5/10

"This isn't a thimble, it's Turkish nipple armor."

[–] jingizu_z 11 years ago

Well, there is your problem right there. You haven't read the book. If you've read the book you will know why most people hate this movie.

Besides, deary, please watch Bram Stoker's Dracula as well. Interview was definitely NOT considered the "only" true vampire movie.

Anne Rice was right, it WAS poorly acted and the absolutely slaughtered her story.

The movie even without the book, was poor. The acting in general was pathetic, the story was shallow, even the effects were contrived-looking.

No sorry, the soundtrack was ok and that was all. The rest of the movie stinks.

NB. you said "...Vincent Perez as Marius was perfect and even his character is true to the books "

How do you know if you haven't read the books?

Since this was posted in 2009, I sincerely hope you have read the books by now.

[–] Word-Weight 11 years ago

It felt to me that the OP was asking how people felt about it without "the prejudice of it not staying true to the book."

I've never read the book, personally.

But as a movie, I could sit through this and take it for what it is. It had a certain appeal to it, as cheesy and flawed as it was. I felt that the actors did what they were told to do, and took no issue with any of them, given the material.

I've seen a number of corny, "hip," popcorn flick vampire films [or corny "goth" films running in the same vein as this in general], and, while still one of those corny films that match its time, it was slightly better than the average corn flick. Certainly better than Twilight's more pretentiously disingenuous ambience. It feels like more of a 5.0 rating, but at the same time, I think the current rating is fine as is. I'm sure most of my tolerance comes from not seeing it as the adaptation others knew it to be.

I personally think some go in with high expectations of films, which causes a type of self-inflicted disappointment at times [counting only those who haven't read the book of a movie before they see it]. I watched this with none at all; aided by blissful ignorance, but more so because I really didn't expect this to be good [or bad]. I could watch this, and The Lost Boys (albeit better, but still corny, IMO), more than once and not outright object to the partner switching either on for movie night, if they wished to.

No sorry, the soundtrack was ok and that was all. The rest of the movie stinks.

Opinions are just opinions, of course. There's no wrong or right answer. I personally enjoyed the soundtrack, but this is coming from someone who has never liked similar music. So my ears are just playing with an exception.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jaye50-1 11 years ago

you guys wrote a book to evaluate this pathetic movie when two words would have sufficed... "it sucked"...

[–] leBratPrincess 11 years ago

Only your opinion.

Here All One Needs Is A Pair Of Fangs
Come Out Come Out Wherever You Are
-Lestat de Lioncourt

[–] zevitorsantos 11 years ago

I don't HATE this movie, I just think the title Queen of the Damned RULES it, if it wasn't for her, then it would definitelly suck. I felt the whle movie was essentially weak, but Aaliyah's performance is just as strong and the previous film. Even without her, it'd still be funny bloodsucking entertainment, for a weak film.

But she was just surprisingly good on this.

[–] derat1000 11 years ago

I think the problem is that you have named the only good things about the film.

Matthew Newton as Marius? Have a look at Antonio Bandaras who played character well and fit the description of the books.

Bruce Spence - great actor, but again. The decription of Khayman would have been better played by an actor of dark skin and larger muscle & body.

Claudia Black did not make a good Pandora, again - I beleive the casting director has not even read the books.

You could go on, but the cast, although good actors, were not even close to their characters in many ways.

The story (as you will see on here) is far from the source material. Which is a shame, and probably the expectations were high following Interview with a Vampire - which was much closer to the book (at least by comparison).

Stuart Townsend did make an acceptable acting contribution to the character, but did not look like Lestat at all. Lestat to look at was much closer to the Tom Cruise vision in hair, eyes, face, lips etc etc...

Its hard to tell people to not have a prejudice of not staying true to the books when they are so popular. People have read them and the creator has established these images in people's minds and they want to see an accurate representation of the charatcers they created.