Just saw Queen of the Damned

[Shawn]

Well, I expected the film to be pretty poor before I even saw it. I mean, come on... the movie's tagline is "All she wants is Hell on Earth". You can hardly get more cliched than that. But, being a huge fan of Mrs. Rice's novels, I just couldn't resist going to see it. So I tried to keep an objective viewpoint while watching the film, as if I had never read any of the books.

But before I get into that, let me just get this out of the way: To say that they 'butchered' the story would be doing Rice's books a grave injustice. After the first 5 minutes of the film, it seems that the scriptwriter just plucked a few names and concepts off the pages and made things up as he went along. Every sub-plot was unilatterally cut. Major plot points were changed entirely. Characters acted so different from their counterparts in the books that they were the complete antithesis of each other, in some cases. If you're a die-hard fan, you're going to be pulling your hair out in frustration over all the things that were changed around.

Now the good:

The special effects, while overdone in some cases, did properly convey the unearthly sense of movement that the Vampires were supposed to posses. Lestat would glide across the ground, seemingly without taking a footstep. Other vampires would vanish from sight with hardly a flicker of movement. The fight scenes were good, if a bit overdone.

I hate to admit it, but Stuart Townsend did make a pretty decent Lestat. He's a poor stand-in for Tom Cruise (who not only played the role flawlessly, IMHO, but looked the part perfectly), but he's a good second choice. His accent was a bit overdone... although it seemed like a good deal of the characters had similar accents. Might have been the fangs. :p

Aaliyah: While I have never been interested in any of her musical efforts, and I never saw 'Romeo Must Die', she played her role exceptionally well in the movie. Despite her short amount of screentime (a bit surprising, seeing as how she's the title character), she was definitely a good choice for the role. It's a real shame that we won't be able to enjoy further works by her. :(

Overall, the film was by no means great, but it was marginally better than the craptastic tour de force I expected it to be. Once I set aside everything I know about the books, that is. Also, it felt very brief, and the ending was rather abrupt. It could have easily done with another half hour or so stuck on there. I do so hope that they add some footage back into the film for the DVD release.

Seing as how there's not much else playing right now, I'm sure it wouldn't be a complete waste of your money and time, if you're looking for a film to catch. While I probably won't see it a second time in theaters, there's a good chance I'll get it when it comes out on DVD.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Maybe I might catch it on DVD, but it does sound a mess as far as the book is concerened, just curious was Louis in it at all? Obiviosily Brad Pitt couldn't play him but I thought I remember his character was in Queen of the Damned at least a little bit and I thought Armand was too. I could be mistaken on both counts.

[Shawn]

Both Louis and Armand are missing in the movie (which isn't that big a deal, seeing as how they had relatively small parts in the books). Gabrielle is missing as well, which is a shame: I rather liked her character. Magnus is missing. Instead, they changed the story so that Marius is Lestat's sire. Rather than being the regal, polite and infinitely patient immortal that he was in the books, he just makes a few passing comments about the importance of 'preserving [vampire] heritage'... namely, human life. He hides Those Who Must Be Kept from Lestat, who finds them entirely by accident.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I thought they had small parts but I had forgotten sucks about Gabrielle, really to me it looks a lot disapointing compared to Interivew with the Vampire.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Definantly one I will miss in any shape or form.

[Mu Satach]

You know... I'm not going to see this one... for a completely personal reason.

I'm just not into vampires anymore... they bore me to tears. :p

or maybe it's just that I'm sick of people who dress and act like them... either way... only way I'll ever watch this thing is if it's on late night cable and I happen to be in a "bite me" mood. :mneh

[Shawn]

Well, if you ever read any of Rice's novels, I think you'll find that her books focus less on the Gothy 'ooh look at me, I'm bad' aspects of vampirism and is more just about character development among immortals.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well I liked Interview with the Vampire I thought that did a great job in adapating her novel and it was a great movie especially acting wise Cruise was good as Lestat, Brad Pitt did a great job as Louis, Kristen Dunst was amazing as Claudia, and also Antonio Bandarias and Steven Rea did great jobs as well, only really Christian Slater did do a great job but he had the weakest role in the film.

[Jinn Fizz]

It just looks way too over-the-top and campy to me.

[JonathanLB]

I thought it was a pretty good movie, actually. I don't care what the heck was in the book, that doesn't make any difference. This is a movie. They can butcher the book as bad as they want. It's BASED ON the book, it's not the book itself. You could make a movie based on a book that only has a few of the same concepts and just discard the rest. So that part doesn't bother me, nor should it bother anyone else who realizes that most of the time, the idea of creating a movie based on a book is not to steal every single idea and piece of dialogue from the book, but to re-imagine it.

In the case of a classic work like LOTR, it would be foolish to stray from the book, though.

I will write my Queen of the Damned review soon for JLBMovies.com, but for now I'll just say a few things.

It was a really loud movie, kind of annoying at times, a bit too glitzy, not altogether that captivating or anything, although it had fairly good effects and it was somewhat interesting. The other problem I saw was this odd message that it's ok to go around killing a few humans as you see fit, no problem, but if you kill a BUNCH of them then that is bad. Uhhh...? That doesn't make any sense. Blade had it right all along, this silly movie and probably Anne Rice's book have it all wrong. Vampire's trying to blend in would be more like from Blade, where they drink blood from blood banks or whatever so they don't have to go around killing people all of the time.

It was sad seeing the "In Memory of Aaliyah" at the end of the film, though. I really liked her. I don't remember any other time when a celebrity I actually liked died. The rest were just old people that I didn't know for the most part, except Lemmon and Walter Mathou, but that wasn't "tragic" because they both made a ton of great films and lived long lives.

[Shawn]

Not to start an argument, but... who are you to say that Anne Rice's books "have it all wrong"? Personally, I thought Blade was a travesty, about as good as Buffy the Vampire Slayer (which is to say, not at all).

And as far as straying from the books go: Some people do consider Anne Rice to be the best author of our time. Her books are looked upon almost as highly as the LotR trilogy.

Everybody understands that you have to change and/or cut a few things for a movie. But to basically disregard the source material and just make stuff up as you go along is kind of wrong, in my opinion. All character development was forfeit to the almighty gods of script editing - Nothing was sacrosanct.

[ReaperFett]

I think Blade works in its way. Because it's modern, and the young come out to take the old and such.

But then, I like John Carpenter's Vampires, a film only liked by me and Harry Knowles at AICN :)

[Darth Turbogeek]

Anne Rice books looked up to the same as LoTR???? Excuse me? Until I got to SWFans, I had never heard of Anne Rice and I would consdier myself resonably well read. I very much doubt she is anywhere near what Tolkein is.

But, be that as it may, Thank you! Someone else thinks Blade and Buffy are bad. So far, the only vampire books / movies I think have been done even close to well are more of the Bram Stoker type. Stoker isn't a easy read now (Language is somewhat different to what you might be used to) and Nosterfaru (1924? Dracula movie) still stands out as the best of the type. Although, I also truly enjoyed Stephen King's vampire book, I think it's Salem's Lot? Been a while since I read it.

Oh yes, go see Christopher Lee playing Dracula. It's rather good :)

[ReaperFett]

Nosterfaru was 1920s, so close enough :)

[JonathanLB]

Blade and Buffy rock.

I didn't mean that Anne Rice "has it wrong factually" because I don't believe in vampires, lol, but her ideas are much more unrealistic and weird than in Blade, where the vampires have really formed a true alliance. Plus, if the book had that same message that it's ok to kill a few people, but not too many, then it's REALLY a stupid book!

"I very much doubt she is anywhere near what Tolkein is."

That's because she isn't. Anne Rice is nothing like Tolkien. Ugg, that comparison is like saying Jerry Bruckheimer is almost as good as Steven Spielberg. Only a total fool would say that, sorry.

Anyway, Anne Rice the best author in our time?!?!?! HELLO? Michael Crichton is ten times more successful and he's a better writer too, not to mention that he's the most financially successful author ever. Steven King, Tom Clancy, John Grisham, those are the great authors of our time. All guys, you will notice, don't ask me why but I prefer guys' writing by far. J.K. Rowling is awful. Even if Harry Potter is a nice story and she's a good storyteller, her writing still sucks. It's conversational and low quality. I cannot stand it.

[ReaperFett]

Ugg, that comparison is like saying Jerry Bruckheimer is almost as good as Steven Spielberg. Only a total fool would say that, sorry.

Yeah, because one directs and one produces :)

[Champion of the Force]

Yeah, because one directs and one produces
Spielberg produces as well. :p


but her ideas are much more unrealistic and weird than in Blade, where the vampires have really formed a true alliance.
Different folks, different strokes. I never really liked Blade much at all, and have preferred the vampires of Rice or even Stoker. Blade attempts to update the whole formula for the modern times but for me it doesn't work.


Anyway, Anne Rice the best author in our time?!?!?! HELLO? Michael Crichton is ten times more successful and he's a better writer too, not to mention that he's the most financially successful author ever. Steven King, Tom Clancy, John Grisham, those are the great authors of our time.
Whether or not her writing is as good as the other authors listed is down to personal opinion, but she does in fact get paid almost as much as some of those authors. She's even managed to have a clause in her contract stating that she no longer needs an editor to revise over her work. Considering many publishers would never print anything without an editor at least giving it a read over that strikes me as something pretty important to have in your contract, and probably shows just how succesful she has become to get that kind of agreement.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Yes, but booksales != good books. Just like music sales != good music.

(!= not equal)

What is solely ramarkable about Tolkein is that you cant argue how good his books are, even if they are not your taste. And they have been ridiculously successful too. There is depth to Tolkein that other authors lack, a way that Tolkein also feels real.

Now I would agree Crighton is good and is very clever, Clancy WAS (I dont like his later stuff) and King is just, well Stephen King - Tolkein, Asimov and Clarke are far better. There's a good reason Tolkein is acclaimed the 20th century's best, because you really could say that and not be laughed at. His wokrs really are a step abouve anyone else named here and I suspect will endure for a long, long, long time as well. Maybe as long as Shakesphere? Who knows. I'd love to think so.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Actually King is the most successful and richest, I forgot where I read he was but he is had more top 10 books than any author ever, which is very impressive. I think King runs circles around Rice in terms of the horror genre, I like Interview with the Vampire but King's works are much better like The Stand, IT, The Green Mile, The Shining (which is one of the scarest books ever), Carrie, etc. Of course this is just my opinion and I am not about to make any comparisons between King and Tolkien that would be foolish, One king has a body of work that is huge nd Tolkien is just remembered for one book (one of the greatest books of all time I have to admit) so they are obviosly different writers and that is why I would rather not compare the two.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Tolkein only remembered for one book?

What about The Hobbit?


Two then :p

Actually, Tolkein does have quite a collection of work, admittedly though most was published after his death. Tolkein above that wasn't really a writer. He was a linguist. He wrote to expand on his languages, to add bits in, to give meanings and placings for his languages.

So tom be honest, I dont think it's possible to compare King to Tolkein.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Exactly I think they are so different that is stupid to compare the two, King is a professional writer while Tolkien never really was. By the way I forgot about the Hobbit have no clue why and as far as his other stuff, its weird that he kept writing form 1954 until his death and never really published anything I guess he wasn't satisfyied with it or something I really don't know. King, on the other hand, writes about 2 or 3 books a year (I'm sure the computer is a huge advantage there too).

[Marcus Telcontar]

Tolkein was a perfectionist. If you ever get the chance, read up on how many times he changed elvish from elfish, to achieve what he wanted. It's almost bordering on psychotic how he wanted LOTR exactly right. Of course, there were also the appendicies that he wrote afterwards that were incorporated, a lot of short stories as well and The Smirallion - which I might add is actually better than LOTR.... if you can read it. It's overwhelming in it's language (Very hard to read) and it's depressing, cause the good guys either lose, or score phyrric victories. There is no pleasantness in that. It's a grim, dark and completely brilliant book. Just be warned firsthand how heavy it is to read tho. this is a book where you contend with to understand. If you can get into it, you'll understand how magnificent it is.

When you produce three works like The Hobbit, LOTR and The Smaimallion, how could you top that anyway? Most authors would kill to do something that works like The Hobbit and that is his worst work.

Now King is no linguist and his books are not the works of art that Tolkien's are, but they have a storytelling quality about them (especially his early ones) that can not be dismissed - and while I think of it, this is the same quality Rowlings has.

[Shawn]

I hope you don't mind, but I skimming some of the tangent posts here. :) Don't have much time to spare tonight.

Yes, I still stand by my statement that Rice is one of the greatest modern authors. I have never spoken with a single person who did not outright love her books. In fact, I'm quite shocked that my statement about her works was challenged at all.

Now, I can sort of see how you had never heard of her, living in Australia, DT: But she is immensely popular in the US. And, unlike music and movies, if a book is popular, it's usually for a good reason. Just for the heck of it, I decided to drop by amazon.com and have a look at the reader reviews for Interview With the Vampire. Almost every single review, without exception, gave it a 5 star rating. People just don't blindly like books in the same way they like Pop Music. Stephen King is probably the most popular fiction writer, that goes without saying. But he's earned his postion as the paradigm of authors.

Most post-Rice vampire fiction borrows heavily from, if not outright rips-off, her books. Ever hear of a game called "Vampire: the Masquerade"? Almost every aspect of the game is blatantly copied from her novels (they make no secret of it, and do give her a nod every now and again). And it's singularly the largest roleplaying game right now. It's like what AD&D was a few years back. Her work has had a huge influence on a great deal of things.

Regardless: I do think I'm getting very off subject now. My entire point was that it's just as blasphemous to her fans for them to butcher the story as it would have been if Jackson had butchered FotR.

Do me a favor: If you get some time, pick up a copy of The Vampire Lestat and give it a read. I'm sure you won't be disappointed. :)

[Marcus Telcontar]

Okay, tho i might have to do some digging to find it. The local library is good, I'll try it out first.

Unfortunanlty, I have to disagree with your supposition that books are different to music in blind devotion. Mills and Boon ring a bell? Cant tell me those things are not mind numbing rot. Or Jackie Collins. Or that Barbara woman, who died not long ago. Or for an Australian one, Bryce Courtney. Admittedly, much fewer and far between, but it's more to do with the fact you have to put some work into a novel, a team of trained monkeys cant really produce one like you can in music.

Or how about people that just buy every Star Wars / Star Trek book, even if they are crap, just for the name? Even King has had some right stinkers published, which still succeed, cause of his name. BUT, that doesnt deny the fact publishing is a higher risk and more expensive industry, big hits are few and far between.

I think tho in hindsight, Jackson may have had the easier task. Us LOTR fans thought he was bound to fail, cause our beloved LOTR was considered unfilmable. Hence, there was an expectation it had to suck. What luck we got a director who not only was a skilled filmaker, but a complete LOTR nut, which showed in the end. I swear Im going to find that guy one day and personally shake his hand. I still cant believe we got something so damn good.

The real difference by the sounds of it is that Queen of the Damned was made by... well Hollywood. Just for a buck. LOTR was made by someone who was in love with the source material.

[JonathanLB]

"His wokrs really are a step abouve anyone else named here and I suspect will endure for a long, long, long time as well. Maybe as long as Shakesphere? Who knows. I'd love to think so."

Yes, I think so. Tolkien is great. Nobody would laugh at someone for suggesting Tolkien is one of the greatest authors of the last few hundred years even. He is really quite spectacular. I wish other people today spent the time on quality writing that he did, but aside from being a great writer, he was one of the best storytellers. Rowling has one part down; she's a good storyteller. I just wish she could write well too. Maybe she'll improve. I heard people say her later books are better. I only read the first and I just was too bothered by the writing. It was not my style, very conversational and to me, that's just bad writing, too informal.

Crichton is the richest author. Don't make me go find that for you. Perhaps if you are talking about "most money from books alone," maybe King wins, but I cannot tell you how many tens of millions of dollars Crichton has more than King. I did a research paper (12 pages) on Crichton -- I do know my stuff here. He was the second wealthiest entertainer one year and it wasn't behind King, LOL, trust me! He made about $175 million from The Lost World alone.

King has done very well for himself, but Crichton has made far more film the film industry than King has. Anyway, Jurassic Park sold more than ten million copies. That has to have made Crichton a fair amount, but the real money is not in the books; it's in the films that come from the books. JP and The Lost World were so amazingly successful worldwide that they alone made Crichton of the richest men in the world. He pocketed probably around $250 million (before taxes) on both of those films and the books he wrote for them.

King has had a lot of his stuff turned into TV type of things if I recall right, but fewer movies and nothing as big as the JP films.

I think Crichton is a very high quality writer. I've heard other people criticize all popular authors, but really Crichton's writing is excellent, his research is even more impressive than his storytelling, which is also wonderful. I loved Timeline, loved Congo (the movie is a sad disappointment, but the book is great), loved Jurassic Park, really really loved The Great Train Robbery (a total classic) and even his earlier book The Andromeda Strain was excellent.

I don't think anyone dislike's Rice, no. I didn't say she wasn't good. I think she's probably one of the most well liked authors around today. I don't think she is one of the greatest of our time, that is going a bit far, but she is quite a good author of course!

Also, King kind of bothers me. I don't really like him that much, even though I appreciate his work.

He said something about how he is quitting writing soon because there are no new ideas, he's already explored everything, already written about everything. That is either the height of arrogance or stupidity, I have not decided which. There is ALWAYS more to write about! Also, if he was really passionate about writing he would feel compelled to do it whenever possible and you don't just "retire" from something you love and can still do! If Michael Jordan could play basketball all of his life and his body let him do that, he would! He loves that game and it's his LIFE, it's what drives him. If his passion were writing, he wouldn't give up until the day he died. I don't think I would ever stop writing until I couldn't anymore. I would perhaps slow my pace, but wouldn't stop.

I didn't like that statement by King at all, it really bugged me.

I like the themes in Crichton's work. His books are very deep, you really don't have to look THAT hard to find the common messages throughout them all, but I guess some people fail to grasp them. I think Jurassic Park the movie pretty much made it clear, though. Crichton is very much against man tampering with nature or abusing science. I think my thesis was something like, "Greed motivates men to make hasty decisions and abuse science to tamper with nature" or something, I dunno, been years now, but I got a 301/300 on that paper (+10 for turning it in early, hehe). :)

[Mu Satach]

Originally posted by Shawn
Well, if you ever read any of Rice's novels,

Actually I've read them all. I read the first three long before she ever did the Tales of the Body Thief.

I enjoyed reading them... but soon after that I just got overwhelmed with vampire stuff... ALL vampire crap bores me now...

and after reading a few more of Rice's novels (the Mayfair Witch series and I desperately tried to read another one about an italian virtuoso singer... )

I just can't stand her anymore.

Can't stand King either...

[Marcus Telcontar]

I have to admit, two of best "Sucked me into believeing this was true" (and dont worry, I know the science was bad, it was however to a layperson BELIEVEABLE and presentible) where Chricton books - the Adromeda Strain and Jurrassic Park. They just seemed so real when I was reading them, so nicely presented. Damn, Jurassic Park the moive was so disappointing when I finally saw it... ruined the book for me. The book itself was great stuff. I would have to agree with your summary of Crichton, Jon.

I'll also tell you this Jon - I began the Harry Potter series with Book 3 and like you,i was thinking kiddies book. Oh boy, wrong, wrong, wrong. Book 3 is very good. The first two are weaker., No 2 especially so. However, No. 4 is where she gets going. I think you may well like books three and four. Three and Four are actually quite dark. Give No 3 (Prisoner of Azabakan) a try.

[Jinn Fizz]

I'm currently a few pages into #4, and I know it's going to take me a while to read it all since it's over 700 pages. But yes, each successive book in the HP series gets better, darker, more complex and adult. Personally, I wasn't all that impressed with the first book, since I felt it was basically just a prologue meant to introduce all the characters and get them in place for the series. It was okay, but not all that exciting. (I'm very happy, though, that the movie turned out so well :).) But yes, with The Prisoner of Azkaban, the storyline really begins to pick up, and it's not kiddie stuff anymore at all. Yes, there are vampires and werewolves, but then there are also the dementors and Harry still trying to cope with the murder of his parents. His anger and sense of loss over that still runs very very deep, and it shows. I also don't think a kiddie book would have some semi-graphic descriptions of one of the main characters getting his leg broken >_< . Plus, I liked the fact that the plot isn't all straightforward paint-by-numbers, and not everything is as it seems. JK Rowling isn't one of the greatest writers I've ever read, but she's entertaining, and she tells a good story.

I've been a great fan of Stephen King's since the early days, and I'll always give him the benefit of the doubt. I've truly hated only a couple of his books, Gerald's Game and Cujo. As for his most recent stuff, I haven't been able to keep up with it, but I buy all of his books as soon as they come out, and dagnabit, I'll read them all one of these days. And if you want to read a great book about the craft of writing, read King's autobiography, "On Writing." It's a very honest piece of work, and quite moving at times as well.

All this talk of Anne Rice reminds me of when I was in New Orleans for World Con in 1988. One of my friends was a big Anne Rice fan, and at that time, Ms. Rice was even listed in the phone book. So my friend took a chance and called the Rice household. She ended up with an invitation to the house, and she spent an entire evening there chatting up the vampire queen. I have serious doubts as to whether anybody would be able to do the same thing now. :)

[Jedi Master Carr]

That whole thing about King retiring turned out to be bogus, what he actually said was that he couldn't see himself writing until he was in his 80's, and I don't blame him he should be enjoying his later years and not having to serve us with more books. Actually I think King's later works are his best staring in the mid 80's with stuff like Different Seasons (Read The Body and Shawshake Redemtion they are great stories), The Green Mile, Desperation, Misery, and his most recent novel Dreamcatcher which is amazing and some critics have called the best book he has written. I think King is a master storyteller, sure he is not brilliant in lanugages like Tolkien but he can still tell a great story and is also a master of suspense.
As far as who makes more money, I am not sure, I know King has had more top 10 best sellers than any other writer but he has not gotten into producting movies like Crichton has. I have no problem with Crichton either I like his work too but I like King a little more but that is just me.

[Jinn Fizz]

Plus, I recall seeing an interview with Stephen King on 60 Minutes a few years ago in which he said he has macular degeneration, which means he's very slowly going blind. So that might be a factor in why he's been quoted as saying he might not be writing forever.

[Shawn]

Hey, he still has at least three more Dark Tower books to come out with! Of course he's not stopping yet! :)

BTW - If you haven't read any of the Dark Tower series (the first book being "The Gunslinger"), I seriously suggest you do. Amazing stuff. The first book is a bit of a dry read, as it was really a series of short stories submitted to some magazine ages ago. But it really starts to pick up with the second book, and each successive one literally is better and longer than the last.

[Jedi Master Carr]

The Dark Tower series is amazing, actually I think it has some similarities with LOTR, I think it was King's attempt at writting a huge epic. Yeah I heard about he is slowly going blind, that probably is the reason he won't be writing forever.

[Shawn]

What I find amazing about the Dark Tower books is that they only keep getting better. Most of the time, when it comes to long sets of books, they start to get watered down, rehashed or even boring after the third book or so. I present, for example, Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth books. The first book was terrific... a prime example of how to do sword and sorcery. The second book took the classic fantasy formula and just perfected it. But the third book... ehhh. It's really gone downhill since then.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Another Great Fantasy series is the Wheel of Time by Robert Jordan those books are great but what are they up to 9? and there is no end in sight.

[Shawn]

"Oh Christ," Eddie said. "I left the world I knew to watch a kid try to put booties on a @$%&ed up weasel. Shoot me, Roland, before I breed." I love that quote. :)

I think I'm the only person on earth who doesn't like the WoT series. On at least three occasions, I've tried to read Eye of the World. I haven't managed to get past page 100 or so without getting absolutely bored to death. Even if the story is good, the writing just kills me.

[Sith Ahnk]

Green Mile was good.

[Shawn]

Ok, let me give you a standard for comparison, DT. Imagine if PJ had done the following to FotR:

Eliminated all the characters except for Frodo, Gandalf and Saruman. The rest of them weren't really that important, anyway.

Since everyone else is gone, there's no real need for an actual "Fellowship" anyway.

All their little stops on the way just distract you from the actual story. So we'll just pretend that they never stopped in Lothlorien or Rivendale.

We're sick to death of the 'Reluctant Hero' tale. So we're going to make Frodo a bold aventurer who's goal in life was to slay all the Nazgul. He happily takes up the quest to bear the ring, and uses it whenever possible to try and draw them near.

And, just for the heck of it, we're going to make it so that Gandalf had an affair with a hobbit woman, and is thus Frodo's father.

No, I'm not exaggerating. All of those kinds of things actually happened to QotD's story.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Man, that is some huge changes, I'm surprised Anne Rice didn't have a fit or did she? I know when Tom Cruise was picked to play Lestat she was mad (she did issue an appology after she saw the movie), and IWTV was pretty faithful to the novel.

[Shawn]

Well, she had rather extensive involvement with IwtV, from my understanding. She didn't even see QotD until a few days before the official release date. I heard that she issued a message approving of it. But then, it would be financial suicide if she condemned it.

[Jedi Master Carr]

True, King has done the same thing, the only he bashed I think was the Shining because he disagreed completely with Kubrick's direction of the story and I actually agree with him there it is nowhere near as good as the book.

[Champion of the Force]

Well, she had rather extensive involvement with IwtV
She did indeed - she was even planning to have Tom Cruise dumped until she saw a scene of him playing Lestat and realised how good he was in the role.

[Shawn]

Yeah. I heard something about how she thought he was "too ugly". Personally, I thought he fit the role perfectly.

[CMJ]

I got around to seeing this one yesterday as part of a deal a theatre was doing. I'm really behind on 2002 releases(was catching up on 2001 movies thoughearly this year).

Admittedly I really enjoyed "Interview". Saying that I've never read any of Rice's novels. She must be an excellent author(like most people on this board, I've heard little but praise for her work)...her idea's are too good for her not to be.

Now since I've never read "Lestat" or "Queen", I have no preconceived idea's. For me the film was a guilty pleasure through and through. Were their some plot holes? Yes, several. Did character's do things with seemingly NO motivation? God yes!
Normally that kinda stuff bothers me, but "Queen" was a fun ole' time of a flick. I KNEW it wasn't great cinema...yet I had a grand time watching it. :)

A good way to spend 2 hours in a darkened theatre for my money.

[JonathanLB]

Yeah, I gave it 2.5 stars, certainly didn't think it was a bad film. It was pretty good, just as you said, many problems with it. Not that bad though.