ailinon
Joined May 2002
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges3
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews10
ailinon's rating
This movie apparently had a budget equal to its creators' lunch money, and, by all gods, does it show! Constantly repeated sets, repeated footage here and there, almost no camera motion, static lighting, cliché dialogues, very bad fighting scenes... I have no idea how this ever made its way out of a studio. It's worse than shorts shot by film school dropouts.
Avoid at all possible cost, as this thing has no real redeeming qualities of any kind. Rent only for two hours of cringing at pretty much every scene, or to play a practical joke on a friend too trusting in your choice of movies to have them waste two hours of their lives.
Avoid at all possible cost, as this thing has no real redeeming qualities of any kind. Rent only for two hours of cringing at pretty much every scene, or to play a practical joke on a friend too trusting in your choice of movies to have them waste two hours of their lives.
The movie, although not faithful to the original novels, succeeds in creating modern gothic vampire vision. Somebody tried to insult QotD calling it a 1,5h music video clip. Actually it is a complement. The everpresent gothic music combined with the music-video-like shots made the movie so moody - and "Queen of the Damned" is a mood-driven story.
I do not understand the die hard fans who complain on the modifications of the story. The plot has been modified to be less confusing for viewers who do not know the novels. The number of characters had been lessened and I have no problems with changing Lestat's maker or skipping Mekare's character. The biggest change - the romance of Lestat and Jesse - seemed a very nice addition to me.
Actually, I think that a faithful adaptation would be a complete failure. The slow and gloomy mood, that was perfect to XIXth century New Orlean and Louis's angst, wouldn't fit Lestat's rebellion and his music. And while the book can be slow, descriptive and combining multiple elements yet conveying them well, the movie simply cannot do it without turning chaotic. "Vampire Lestat" and "Queen of the Damned" can be split into at least three movies - the creators had to choose something.
Some of the special effects, like the flying or walking out of the flames were the only thing I actually didn't like in this movie. But Akasha's death was very nice. The cast was good, Stuard Townsend was convincing as Lestat, especially on the concert, but I preferred Banderas as Armand. I loved Jesse, Maharet and Marius though. And of course Aaliyah was perfect with her quasi-ancient-Egyptian accent.
So if you are into gothic music and vampiric dillemas of loneliness and eternity (and you don't consider books to be movie scenarios) "Queen of the Damned" is one of the few movies which show vampires as something more than blood sucking monsters. But please do not compare it to the "Interview" movie. It has a completely different style, precisely as much different as different were Louis and Lestat. Personally I find it thrilling first to watch a vampire's existence from Louis' "bottled hunger" point of view, and then switching to one devoid of all morals but surprisingly outgoing for a vampire, Lestat.
I'd give "Queen" 8 of 10 as it had some technical flaws, but I decided to give it 9 as it's vastly underrated by people who hate it simply because it didn't match their vision of the books, which can be clearly seen by looking at the votes breakdown.
I do not understand the die hard fans who complain on the modifications of the story. The plot has been modified to be less confusing for viewers who do not know the novels. The number of characters had been lessened and I have no problems with changing Lestat's maker or skipping Mekare's character. The biggest change - the romance of Lestat and Jesse - seemed a very nice addition to me.
Actually, I think that a faithful adaptation would be a complete failure. The slow and gloomy mood, that was perfect to XIXth century New Orlean and Louis's angst, wouldn't fit Lestat's rebellion and his music. And while the book can be slow, descriptive and combining multiple elements yet conveying them well, the movie simply cannot do it without turning chaotic. "Vampire Lestat" and "Queen of the Damned" can be split into at least three movies - the creators had to choose something.
Some of the special effects, like the flying or walking out of the flames were the only thing I actually didn't like in this movie. But Akasha's death was very nice. The cast was good, Stuard Townsend was convincing as Lestat, especially on the concert, but I preferred Banderas as Armand. I loved Jesse, Maharet and Marius though. And of course Aaliyah was perfect with her quasi-ancient-Egyptian accent.
So if you are into gothic music and vampiric dillemas of loneliness and eternity (and you don't consider books to be movie scenarios) "Queen of the Damned" is one of the few movies which show vampires as something more than blood sucking monsters. But please do not compare it to the "Interview" movie. It has a completely different style, precisely as much different as different were Louis and Lestat. Personally I find it thrilling first to watch a vampire's existence from Louis' "bottled hunger" point of view, and then switching to one devoid of all morals but surprisingly outgoing for a vampire, Lestat.
I'd give "Queen" 8 of 10 as it had some technical flaws, but I decided to give it 9 as it's vastly underrated by people who hate it simply because it didn't match their vision of the books, which can be clearly seen by looking at the votes breakdown.