| NAME | Armand'sGirl | |
| urnotyouremailaddress@yahoo.com | ||
COMMENTS |
I think i'm in love with you. I can't stress how much this movie makes me choke on my own vomit, your doing the world a great service with this site.
I HATE YOU QUEEN OF THE HAMMED! EAT SHIT AND DIE! | |
| DATE | Friday, March 14th 2008 - 12:42:53 AM | |
| NAME | ~SL. | |
COMMENTS |
Gah...I feel your pain oh ye Maker of Awesome Hate Site. Wow, that movie was dreadful in every possible sense of the word. It was one big mindfuck, honestly. I can't believe people actually feel their reasonable in claiming Stuart was a superior Lestat, are you people high? He was more like Lestat's annoying little brother, trying desperately to be like him. “Oh but he had that arrogance and sexiness that Lestat does.” No, jackass, he didn’t. Cruise was the real thing, he took it seriously, and WANTED to do justice to Rice’s character. Anywho, lets see, the acting was bad, Akasha was…something or other…character’s physical attributes just weren’t there, or even attempted it seemed, Mekare was missing, the other characters didn't have any spotlight time (and if they did it was when they were creepily stalking and popping up everywhere Lestat was…odd huh? SUPERNATURAL DIPSHIT RADAR!), it was all about Lestat...er...some weak attempt at Lestat, I might say, and his "rock career". The evolution of the vampires was apparently not of the importance to the film. Well, is that not what the book explained, the evolution of them all? Were they came from? How they got here? Did I miss something, was it about something else that I'm completely unaware of? I did like how you brought up the whole "ubergoffica" atmosphere...lord that was ridiculous. Yea...Lestat and his posse are a bunch of Hot Topic wearing, MTV watching, sad bastards...Queen of the Damned the movie makes me utterly miserable... Interview with the Vampire the movie is how it’s done, props to Neil Jordan for that. The thing that really pisses me off about QOTD the movie is they claimed they wanted this movie to stand on its own feet. Then why the hell didn't they make their own movie? No, lets just chop up a Rice creation to the point that’s its unrecognizable... and then they have the audacity to call it a sequel? Are you kidding me? What they did chuck into that movie regarding the second book, The Vampire Lestat, was totally inaccurate anyhow. It doesn’t even deserve to be categorized as a “Rice Adaptation” ...oh...just blah on it...blah on the movie, the makers of it, the asshole that had the idea in the first place, and blah on me for actually renting it...
~SL | |
| DATE | Sunday, February 17th 2008 - 01:02:40 AM | |
| NAME | Mandy | |
| LegendaireLestat@aol.com | ||
| URL | http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Darklings-we-listen/ | |
COMMENTS |
THANK YOU! Hello, I'm JTheGoblinKng AKA LegendaireLestat (on AOL / AIM) but everyone calls me Mandy. Anyway, I LOVE your site! Here's my usual rant about how I hate that film Queen of the hammed. ------------------------------------ Here is something I said to a fan of the movie Queen of the hammed. Stuart Townsend didn't play Lestat. He played a creature going by the name Lestat. A cheesey, Eastern European Dracula rip off in a leather coat. He didn't take the role seriously. He was drunk for the filming of important scenes. He didn't even try to read the books, where as Tom Cruise, in spite of his dyslexia made it a point to get to know Lestat from reading The Vampire Lestat. To quote Anne Rice, the character's creator, about Townsend. 'He was cold and humourless and not MY Lestat.' Warner Brothers realized just how terrible the movie Queen of the damned truly was, that's why they financed the new Lestat musical. It's their apology for Queen of the damned, which was just a terrible film in general, with or without the books, or Interview with the vampire which it claimed to be the sequel of even though the time line was too inconsistant. The musical Lestat contains no aspect of the movie Queen of the damned, as proof that Warner Brothers knows that film was a mistake, however it does have direct connections to the movie Interview with the vampire. Warner Brothers never paid for a play before, until now. Queen of the damned was one of Warner's greatest disasters and they felt they had to apologize in some way. The fact that you would even think Stuart Townsend was better than Tom Crusie is just depressing. That film was awful, even he didn't take it seriously. Notice how he carried the violin in the first scene, then it's gone a few seconds later. Notice how his zipper opened and closed by itself multiple times when he was talkng to the band as he wore that leather jacket. Notice how he was told by two separate characters that Akasha killed her old king and each time he was surprised. Just because a character is dark and brooding that does not give a film depth or quality. The character Townsend played was rather two dimensional and without feeling. Even with a decent script he couldn't have pulled it off. Stuart Townsend doesn't have enough artistic integrity to pull it off, he has proven that. You see, many actors, even ones that aren't famous, when taking a beloved character role will make it a point to get to know the character and if they see something that strays from that character's nature or personality they would raise a fuss the way Wsley Snipes did when Blade began to stray from the character's original personality. I am not a huge fan of him but I can respect his integrity. Townsend has none. He didn't care about the role. He didn't bother to get to know Lestat in the books. He was drunk for important scenes and his acting was just terrible. The role requires someone who can understand the character. Tom Cruise made it a point to know Lestat. Don't patronize us by claiming you read the book and then say these sort of things. It's an insult to our intellect. It's superficial, shallow, two dimensional tripe. And there is NOTHING in it from the novels other than the character names. To quote Anne Rice, the character's creator. 'He was cold and humourless and not MY Lestat.' The movie Queen of the damned was really badly made. The film was meant to appeal to what the film makers viewed to be shallow, teeny bopper, Goths. They didn't even try to make an effort. The plot was dumbed down and formulaic. The acting was terrible. They believed our attention spans were so short we wouldn't even notice the bad editting that had Townsend's character told twice that Akasha killed her old king and each time he reacts surprised. I would never praise a film designed to insult my intellect the way Queen of the damned had been. You might have liked it but that was not Lestat, at least not according to the character's creator, whom felt Tom Cruise played him perfectly. Anne Rice's words after seeing Townsend's performance were as follows. 'He was cold and humourless and not MY Lestat.' However she felt Tom Cruise played Lestat perfectly. Anne Rice's praise of Interview with the vampire.... http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~forest/vamipre/state.html (after her viewing of an advanced copy of the VHS after the production was wrapping up) http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~forest/vamipre/morecomments.html (A month after it's release) There's also her review at amazon.com of the movie under the name Anneobrienrice. The fact is Anne Rice felt Tom Cruise captured Lestat perfectly. She has said this many times. She also said that Stuart Townsend was not her Lestat. You have to heed her. She created Lestat. Her view of Lestat is the version you're supposed to see. The way she imagines him is the way she intended for us to see him. She created the character. He is her creation. And that means you cannot contradict her view of which is the true Lestat since he is her creation. She felt Tom Cruise was perfect and Townsend was awful. That reasoning is superficial and shallow, by the way Tom Cruise looked like him as far as descriptions go and he is the better actor, there's a reason he has more fame than Townsend. It isn't that Townsend didn't look the part. The fact is he's a terrible actor and didn't take the role seriously. I don't care if the actor is an Asian girl with purple hair. So long as the personality is right that is what counts. the fact is Townsend was just playing Dracula in a leather coat. Tom Cruise got the personality. Tom Cruise was dyslexic. That makes reading very difficult and yet he read The Vampire Lestat in a matter of days. It's a very simple to read book with very direct and matter of fact wording. This excuse you gave is terrible. I couldn't call the movie Queen of the hammed fun. Not when it was designed to be insulting. The film was meant to appeal to what the film makers viewed to be shallow, teeny bopper, Goths. They didn't even try to make an effort. The plot was dumbed down, filled with tired cliches and was formulaic. The acting was terrible. They believed our attention spans were so short we wouldn't even notice the bad editting that had Townsend's character told twice that Akasha killed her old king and each time he reacts surprised. In regard to Stuart Townsend. Just because something is dark and brooding that does not make it more dramatic. He didn't have the frenetic hand gestures or the humour from the books. Lestat had a keen sense of humour. He was playful. Stuart Townsend was not. To quote Anne Rice. 'He was cold and humourless and not MY Lestat.' He was emotionless. He made Tom Cruise's seem like the good view of Lestat and that was supposed to Lestat from a dark point of view. You can say you like Townsend all you want but Anne Rice is the character's creator. She knows Lestat. She made him. You cannot claim to say she is wrong about what is more true to her own creation. She felt Tom Cruise played him perfectly and that the creature Stuart Townsend played was no Lestat. Since she's the character's creator you have to heed what she said as truth. You can like him but you know he was not Lestat. Do not confuses dark clothes and a pouting face, and whining, sulking brooding for passion. That is not passion, it is following a cheesey trend for a personality type Lestat never was. That's just a tired, byronic cliche which Lestat never was. That's shallow. That's superficial and extremely foolish. That would be like calling Hot Topic a deep and meaningful place. Townsend doesn't have passion or artistic integrity. It's why his Dorian Gray is so similar to his so called Lestat. He didn't take the role seriously. He just mimicked bad Dracula cliches. That's not good acting and it's not passionate. He, himself, would admit he didn't take it very serious. He was drunk. You can say you like Townsend all you want but Anne Rice is the character's creator. She knows Lestat. She made him. You cannot claim to say she is wrong about what is more true to her own creation. She felt Tom Cruise played him perfectly and that the creature Stuart Townsend played was no Lestat. Since she's the character's creator you have to heed what she said as truth. You can like him but you know he was not Lestat. The fact that you would even think Stuart Townsend was better than Tom Crusie is just depressing. That film was awful, even he didn't take it seriously. Notice how he carried the violin in the first scene, then it's gone a few seconds later. Notice how his zipper opened and closed by itself multiple times when he was talkng to the band as he wore that leather jacket. Notice how he was told by two separate characters that Akasha killed her old king and each time he was surprised. Just because a character is dark and brooding that does not give a film depth or quality. The character Townsend played was rather two dimensional and without feeling. Even with a decent script he couldn't have pulled it off. Stuart Townsend doesn't have enough artistic integrity to pull it off, he has proven that. You see, many actors, even ones that aren't famous, when taking a beloved character role will make it a point to get to know the character and if they see something that strays from that character's nature or personality they would raise a fuss the way Wsley Snipes did when Blade began to stray from the character's original personality. I am not a huge fan of him but I can respect his integrity. Townsend has none. He didn't care about the role. He didn't bother to get to know Lestat in the books. He was drunk for important scenes and his acting was just terrible. The role requires someone who can understand the character. Tom Cruise made it a point to know Lestat. The movie Queen of the damned was really badly made. The film was meant to appeal to what the film makers viewed to be shallow, teeny bopper, Goths. They didn't even try to make an effort. The plot was dumbed down and formulaic. The acting was terrible. They believed our attention spans were so short we wouldn't even notice the bad editting that had Townsend's character told twice that Akasha killed her old king and each time he reacts surprised. I would never praise a film designed to insult my intellect the way Queen of the damned had been. You might have liked it but that was not Lestat, at least not according to the character's creator, whom felt Tom Cruise played him perfectly. The following is something I wrote a long time ago... Queen of the damned was like a labotomy for those of us who ever complained about Interview with the vampire. The following is an old rant against those who actually perfer Stuart Townsend. It's formatted strangely because I had to retrieve it from the archives of an E-mailing list. Once you understand what Stuart Townsend did you'll understand why I'm passionate about defending Tom Cruise's portrayal. For starters, Townsend's fed on his groupies in this movie. Lestat was obsessed with good and evil. Remember, he was resolved never to drink innocent blood. He was a hunter. He liked to hunt his evil doers. The director had him feed at random because he felt good and evil were too abstract. What's so abstract about killing humans who kill other humans and have shown no remorse? Good and evil were MAJOR themes in the story. Lestat was a hunter, he'd have found that vulgar. Also, Roger- this Renfield-reject. A man who would bring innocent girls to their deaths in exchange for money would be Lestat's ideal victim. This wasn't Lestat at all. This was Dracula in a leather jacket. And talk about stupid! Marius tells him that Akasha killed her old king. Ten minutes later Akasha tells him this and he's SURPRISED! How short IS his attention span? It's an insult to the character to call this Lestat. It didn't even give the real reason as to WHY he became a rock star. To quote Anne Rice herself 'He's too cold and humourless and not MY Lestat.' The sequels of Interview with the vampire are where you are supposed to be able to see Lestat's capacity for goodness, not his darkness. It was Interview with the vampire where you're supposed to see his evil not vice versa. However, Tom Cruise, now THAT was true to Lestat. And let's face it, though the end was changed, that is exactly what Lestat would have done had he been there at the end of the Interview. Tom Cruise actually bothered to read The Vampire Lestat before playing him, he made it a point to understand the character. Townsend didn't even try. He was playing Dracula in a leather coat, not Lestat. ------------------------------------------------- Is that all that matters? The pretty face? Talk about shallow! No wonder Anne Rice got pissed off at her own fans and shattered Lestat's personality into his direct opposite in Blood Canticle. Hell, Townsend's eye make up makes him look more like a zombie than Lestat. Anne Rice didn't care that he didn't look like Lestat but she out right ranted about how disappointed she was in how his version acted and sounded. The accent wasn't even French. However, when Tom Cruise played him, though she originally had her doubts, when she saw how he played him she wrote an eight page article published in The New York Times, praising Tom Cruise's portrayal of Lestat. She created Lestat, shouldn't you go with how she saw him? Granted I disagree with what she did to him in Blood Canticle but that's another matter, and I'm almost certain she had a break down in the late-nineties to account for it. You'll tell me that Townsend's Lestat? Did you read the books at all? Do you really, honestly think Lestat would feed off of his groupies? Innocent girls lead to their deaths by a renfield rip off? Townsend's version was a cheap Goth cliche, a cardboard, brooding and whining stereotype. Where was the mischeviousness? The boyish playfulness? The vampire who could burst into laughter at inappropriate moments? The Brat Prince? The one who believed in the age of innoence? In love with Jesse- made by Marius- wanting to be a rock star just to be noticed. There, there was a lot more to it than that. Lestat didn't follow trends, he created them. In 1984 a vampire rock star who was not Dracula-esque would have been ground breaking, but Townsend seemed to be the irony- a Lestat following a cliche created BY the original idea of Lestat but it's been twisted so much it's hard to tell that this was the original source of that image. His version ws too simple, depthless, lacking in personality. Also, his version had to be told TWICE that Akasha killed her old king, once by Marius and once by Akasha, and the second time he's surprised. Lestat always secretly ached for goodness, not evil justified for the sake of good. He said if a war broke out between vampires and mortals he would have fought for the sake of humanity. It was the innocence he valued, not justifying evil. He'll tell you this in the first chapter of The vampire Lestat. That evil has no place or value, that good does not need evil. He does not justify it. He views himself as evil because he's a vampire and because he takes lives- for Armand evil is something, somehow, even more sinister than that. Understand? Armand believed that in serving The Devil with his Satanic coven he was serving God because God created The Devil. Evil for the sake of goodness is just plain stupidity. And for the record this is not what Lestat did. Some people think it is but it's not. He wasn't evil for the sake of serving The Devil. He was the image of evil in order to warn humanity about the evil that secretly walked among them. He wanted to be good. And when the war started against good and evil he tells us he'd have fought on the side of goodness. The only problem is he didn't account for how this would hurt those he loves. That's a huge difference from being a 'minion of Satan.' It's not the same paradox at all. Armand wanted to serve Satan because God created Satan, and so because God created Satan he thought he was serving God through Satan. I don't know how anyone could view it as the same thing. Anne Rice goes into an elaborate explanation for Lestat's agenda in The vampire Lestat. I suggest you re-read it some time. He wasn't evil because Good needs Evil. Lestat never believed that. Armand did. Lestat doesn't think evil should exist. Lestat tried to be good as a rock star. He even tried to pose as a good man when he first became a vampire. He wanted to protect those he loved (including Nicki) from the evil he was. This infuriated Nicki later on, that even as a vampire, Lestat always tried to be a good man. Lestat values goodness and inncoence, that's why he won't kill innocence. He doesn't kill evil doers in some misguided notion that he's doing good. Lestat feeds on evil doers because they're like himself. Lestat views the taking of any life as evil, that's why he sees himself as evil. But he will not kill good. It's not that he kills evil doers and pretends this is good, it's that he won't kill those he views as good because he values it, he thinks the world needs them. And he respects them. He doesn't think he's doing right, that he can save his soul by only feeding on evil. He just preseves that which has value to him, that's all. He just won't kill what he likes and respects and he likes and respects goodness. The director couldn't grasp this, he was also homophobic. Ever wonder why Townsend's version was barely metrosexual and not even bi? They had to turn Nicki into a Gypsy girl... I thought some of you would like to see what Anne Rice's opinion of the movies had been. Anne Rice's praise of Interview with the vampire.... (Possitive) And http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~forest/vamipre/state.html (after her viewing of an advanced copy of the VHS after the production was wrapping up) http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~forest/vamipre/morecomments.html (A month after it's release) There's also her review of the DVD of Interview with the vampire at amazon.com under the name Anneobrienrice. Anne Rice's opintion of Queen of the damned (Negative) I can't find them off hand. I guess people don't like to post negative comments about movies from well known writers. But Anyway the comments 'He's too cold and humourless and not MY Lestat' might be found at www.annerice.com And if you can find the transcript (I can't) on 20 / 20 last Halloween she said and I quote 'The movie was a disappointment.' The movie's own commentary says every few minutes or so 'Anne Rice didn't approve of this' or 'Anne Rice didn't approve of that.' There's no saying 'Well, that's his interpreation of the character.' We're stalking about a straight forward novel's character. And things are only left open to 'interpretation' if they're abstract or if the creator did not have a set idea in mind. Anne Rice did have a set idea and she out right said that Stuart Townsend was not Lestat. She created the character. As much as I dislike what she did with Lestat in the later books he is her creation and mercifully, before she drastically changed him, she out right said that Tom Cruise played him perfectly. You can say you like Stuart Townsend better but you must then admit that is not Lestat, by the view of the character's very creator. You must respect he is HER creation and if she says Stuart Townsend was not playing her character then don't pretend he was and if she says Tom Cruise played hm perfectly, and she did say that, then if you like it or not THAT is Lestat. Besides the fact that Lestat killed his victims at random, which made NO sense since his obsession with good and evil and feeding only on evil doers was a major issue in the books something else made little sense to me. Marius told Lestat that Akasha killed her old king. Then roughly ten minutes later Akasha told him this and he's SURPRISED. How short was his attention span in that movie? Was the writing THAT bad on that movie that no one noticed he was told this twice? He saw the images flash between them of the king being sucked dry when Marius told him. He had no reason to think Marius would lie. And to act surprised to Akasha about it had no purpose, she already knew Marius was at the concert, he was still standing on the stage in the adbuction scene. So why do it? Was that version of Lestat really that stupid? And because the director was a homophobe when it came to his protagonist (if you could call a vampire who feeds on innocent groupies a protagonist) Nicki had to be turned into a gypsy girl. Who ever heard of a completely straight Lestat? There was also a sublty to Tom Cruise's portrayal which you never saw with Townsend's because there was NO DEPTH! All of Townsend's characters act and behave the same way. With Tom Cruise's Lestat you saw his anger. You saw his passion. Even his protectiveness of Louis- when he looks out on the City after Louis has run off to sulk in the sewer. He's staring out there knowing Louis is all alone and wandering, you can feel his ache. And when Claudia offers him those boys 'Do we forgive each other then?' There's such a quiet, dignified pleading in his eyes, he really wanted her to forgive him. The bouts of laughter that were sometimes inappropriate- as he discribes himself as having in the novels, even the flamboyant and almost nervous hand gestures (Lestat discribes himself as making these in The Vampire Lestat). Tom did his homework. Every word, every expression, every gesture, every glance, every emotion- it was Lestat. Even the playful mischeviousness as he leaps into the car and turns on rock music. Pulling the flrilled sleeve out of the leather jacket cuff and taking the wheel. That is TRUE Lestat fashion right there. It strays from the novel but let's face it. That's exactly what he would have done. There was NOTHING even remotely 'Lestat-esque' about Townsend and those that claim to see Lestat in him know nothing of the character or are too shallow to see past the pretty face. And to be honest, I don't even think Townsend looks all that great. He looks like an insomniac who hasn't slept, dark rings under his eyes, emotionless expression, an accent that can't even pass for French. What was that supposed to be? Transylvanian? It makes my blood boil when anyone calls Tom Cruise's version evil. I can't understand how anyone can be that superficial. They went to great lengths to make you see there was more to the story than what Louis was saying in the narration. Some people say Tom Cruise was over acting. No, that's not over acting, that's acting. Lestat was an extrovert, and passionate, he did Over react to things, it was his nature, he was passionate. Lestat felt and he felt things very strongely. He was not 'detached'. To be honest I think the one in Queen of the damned was more of a jerk. The sins of Tom Cruise's version can be explained by his fear of rejection and need for companionship and keeping Louis to him because of his issues of abandonment. What was Townsend's excuse? He wasn't desperately trying to keep a companion or hide from the unspoken horrors of a past that was never faced. Everyone knew his back story- as lame as it was- in Queen of the hammed. To me humanity comes from compassion, love, passion, emotion and it's effect on how one behaves. Humanity comes from emotion and capacity for goodness or belief in it. Humanity: Noun: plural : the branches of learning (as philosophy, arts, or languages) that investigate human constructs and concerns as opposed to natural processes (as in physics or chemistry) and social relations (as in anthropology or economics) 4 : MANKIND 1 The Humanity in Tom Cruise's version reads as follows. 1. Heroically risked his own life to leap into a fire to save Louis in spite of the fact that fire might destroy him. 2. He perferred to feed on evil doers because they're 'easier and taste better' telling us, even in Louis's darkling view of him that Lestat had a conscience. And even the line 'One so innocent must not be made to suffer.' 3. He spoke gently to his would-be fledglings. 'Don't be afraid.' He spoke with affection to Louis at their final meeting in that movie. 4. He truly wanted Claudia to forgive him. There's a pleading inhis eyes as he asks 'Do we forgive each other then?' 5. His worry over Louis as he looks out at the rainy night knowing that Louis is out there smewhere. 6. His frustration when Louis asked about his maker and what his maker might have told him. 'WHY? WHY SHOULD I KNOW THESE THIGS? DO YOU KNOW THEM?' 7. His helplessness and his admission to helplessness as he calls out to Louis for help when Claudia poisoned him. 8. His struggle and desperation to keep Louis to him because of his obvious fear of being alone and of abandonment and rejection. Almost everything he did was in desperation to keep Louis to him. 9. Giving Claudia a doll every night on the aniversary of making her a vampire. 'What night? What do you mean?' 10. 'He lavished affection on her. There was no doubt about that.' on her, buying Claudia dresses and dolls and teaching her to play the piano, and how to hunt, ect... 11. His pleading with Louis to stay with him at the end and Louis's refusal of him. If you look at his eyes they're glazed with tears as Louis walks away. 12. He never blamed Louis for setting fire to him. He loved him in spite of it and still wanted him to come home to him. 13. He was capable of regret. 'She should never have been one of... one of us...' 14. His fear as he screams when he's set on fire (but that could be pain) and his fear of the helicopter. 15. He did not like the innocent to suffer. 'Gently, Cheri. One so innocent must not be made to suffer.' 16. The exasperation in his voice as Louis asks about his past and he says 'I learned absolutely nothing.' 17. His admieration for Louis's beauty. 18. He also loved Louis because Louis didn't come easy for him the way most other things did. The way it's portrayed in the movie is this... Lestat: 'No one could refuse me.' Louis: 'I tried.' Lestat: 'Yes, you tried. And the more you tried. The more I wanted you.' 19. Lestat might have mildly confused love with possession, but not on as great a scale as Armand could. I think this was actually a direct result of exposure to Armand and Armand's concept of Love. He went from a cold and barely readable love from only his mother, the passion of Nicki- which was misleading to his mortal mind, and then to Armand's idea of love which was a confused idea of domination and possession, of being dominated or of dominating, of being possessed, or possessing. Lestat was experimenting with his own under-developed sense of what it meant to love and be loved. He loved Louis and naturally thought that in spite of everything Louis must feel the same way deep down in side, which is why he expected more from Louis when Claudia attacked him. But he was always ready to forgive Louis. Now that is unconditional love right there! (You can easily argue that this is only in the novel but the fact is Armand admits to having known Lestat in the movie 'I knew him. Knew him well enough not to mourn his passing.' Since the plot was faithful to then novel we can only assume they met exactly as they had in The Vampire Lestat novel which accounts for Armand's resentment of him.) 20. His loneliness. 'You need a brother or I do.' 'Have you come home to me then?' He couldn't stand rejection. And he had a human need for companionship. And making Claudia. 'Perhaps in the end he did it because he was lonely too.' 21. His fear of rejection. Fear of rejection made him hint to Louis that he could not kill him. 22. His fear of abandonment. His fear of abandonment lead to the foolish experiment of making Claudia. He didn't want Louis to leave him. 23. His resentment about having been made a vampire against his will. 'I wasn't given a choice, remember.' And the repeated 'I'm going to give yo the choice I never had.' 24. His dislike of being alone lead him trying to coax Louis into going with to the Opera. He became cynical when Louis refused to go with him. 'You'll soon run out of chickens, Louis.' 25. Right after Lestat says 'I hope it's a beautiful women with endowments you'll never possess.' Claudia asks 'Why do you say such things?' He stops grinning immidately and looks down, quite ashamed. 26. His look of horror that his little girl could strike out at him. 'Stop her, Louis.' The gasp as she cuts open his cheeks. 27. His attempt and want to comfort Louis in his first day as a vampire. 'Don't worry. Soon you'll be sleeping as soundly as you ever slept. And when you awake I will be waiting for you and so will all the world.' As if he believes his pesence could comfort Louis against the horrors of his first night as a monster. 28. Rescuing Louis from The Pimp and Prostitute who meant to slit his throat. 29. Considering Lestat did have telepathic powers in this movie 'Read his thoughts' he might have influenced the card player not to shoot Louis under the suspicion of cheating. Lestat was watching over head like some strange guardian angel. 30. Lestat could easily have fled when Lady St. Claire screamed 'MURDERER!' But instead he raced back to slave Louis before anything could happen to him. 31. His playful, boyish yet dark mischeviousness which is apparent by his random bouts of laughter, tossing grapes at Louis, dancing with Claudia's corpse. Leaping into the convertible 'Oh, Louis, Louis. Still whining, Louis. Had enough? I had to listen to that for centuries.' And then turning on rock music and laughing as he raced down the highway. Now that was true to Lestat's nature. 32. His angst which comes forward in his mood swings and the obvious secrets he keeps by his unspoken past and his frustration and Louis's questions about it. 33. His ache for Louis as he sat alone in the dilapidated house. 'I have dreamed of this moment.' The way he was so utterly humbled. The fear and pleading in his eyes and the nervousness of his gestures in other scenes. His constant desperation in a fascage of strength and self-confidence. Queen of the damned technical mistakes. 1. When Lestat is walking from the cemetary he's carrying the 'gypsy girl's' (coughs) homophobe (coughs) violin. Yet he doesn't have it when he feeds or when he goes to the rock band. did he drop it somewhere? 2. When Lestat walks in the attic studio his leather jacket is open but then when the camera pans from a band member back to Lestat it's suddenly zipped up. Preternatural speed zipping? 3. The motto 'We observe and record but never interfere' is given at the Talamasca mother house. This is the motto of The Watchers from the television series Highlander. The Watchers were based on The Talamasca. The Talamasca motto is 'We watch and we are always here.' Little confusion about which was based on which? 4. When Lestat crawls on the ceiling his hair remains perfectly still. 5. Even when a character isn't moving that fast he's making a vapour trail. Drugs? And why a helicopter sound effect? 6. 'I'm too old to live forever.' Why did they have David say this if the actor is only five years older than the actor playing Lestat? Also just four years earlier he was in the made for television movie of Dr. Who and he was called a young man in that. 7. Marius told Lestat that Akasha killed her old king. Then roughly ten minutes later Akasha told him this and he's SURPRISED. How short was his attention span in that movie? Was the writing THAT bad on that movie that no one noticed he was told this twice? He saw the images flash between them of the king being sucked dry when Marius told him. He had no reason to think Marius would lie. And to act surprised to Akasha about it had no purpose, she already knew Marius was at the concert, he was still standing on the stage in the adbuction scene. So why do it? Was that version of Lestat really that stupid? 8. Why is America's MTV playing on an American TV / VCR in Jesse's London flat? ---------------------------------------------- 9. On the DVD and video tape boxes for the movie Queen of the damned it claims that Queen of the damned is the sequel to the movie version of Interview with the vampire. And Suncoast video even sells the movies as a boxed set (about five dollars cheaper than buying Interview with the vampire seperately- telling me they're paying me for taking Queen of the damned.) 9 A. Ignoring the books why does Lestat look nothing like the version of himself of the earlier movie? 9 B. If Lestat went underground in a cemetary in 1880 how did Louis see him in the nineteen eighties in New Orleans? 9 C. If he didn't rise until 2002 how was he in the convertible with Daniel Molloy? (Malloy in the British versions of the books) 9 D. What became of Daniel? 9 E. What became of Louis and the interview Louis gave? Why does Lestat not mention him at all? 9 F. How was his violin not destroyed in the fire in the town house or the plantation? 10. On the video tape box look closing at Stewart Townsend and imagine him without Akasha in front of him. The nipple is too close to the armpit. They removed and digitally put back the nipple because they thought it looked better. Without Akasha in front of him he's got a freakish nipple making it's way to his armpit. 11. Lestat mocks Marius for wearing velvet yet Lestat himself loves velvet, in the books espeically red. Even without the books Lestat was wearing a black velvet shirt when feeding on those groupies! So why was he mocking him? 12. A concert in Death Valley, Death Valley drops far below zero at night and over a hundred degrees Fahrenheit during the day. That's why it's called Death Valley. The audience would have frozen to death. Ugh... There's just too many to name. It gives me a headache trying to just think of them all. ------------------------ And here is the review of the movie Queen of the damned I posted at The Internet movie data base. Why won't the hurting stop? (Posted January two thousand and five) Oh, it hurts... It hurts my head... I fear watching it might cause an aneurysm. And I could spit in the face of anyone who dares compare Stuart Townsend to Tom Cruise. There's no contest. Tom understood the character, felt for him, became him. Anne Rice, herself, said he was the perfect Lestat and called Townsend's... Whatever that was as being too cold and humourless and not her Lestat but these teeny boppers (Oh, dear, I'm labelling) can't accept that and latch on to what they consider to be a pretty face. Townsend wasn't playing Lestat. He was playing Dracula in a leather coat but I could rant for hours about that. When Tom Cruise played Lestat in Interview with The Vampire there was layers to the personality. The pleading look as he asks 'Do we forgive each other then?' The way he worried for Louis as Louis ran out into the rain, the way he saved Louis from the fire, the angst the personality it was all there. WIth Stuart Townsend you had nothing. The acting was wooden. Shallow. And even if you had never read the Anne Rice novels this movie doesn't stand up on it's own. It makes little sense. And the 'hero' kills innocent girls at random because according to the director's commentary good and evil are too abstract to feed on evil doers as he did in the novels. What's so abstract about killing murderers who feel no remorse? Good and evil were major themes in the book but anyway... Aside from the book this 'hero' had to be told twice that Akasha had killed her old king from two completely different characters. And each time he was surprised. Talk about a short attention span. This movie was designed to appeal to people with a very low IQ and little respect for the original source material, be it Interview with the vampire the movie or the novels. And as a stand alone film I don't think I'd even tolerate it on Mystery science theatre. I did like the songs Forsaken and Not meant for me so I'll give it credit for that but ONLY that. Fortunately for us people who actually have a mind of our own and care about character personalities we have the Sir Elton John's The Vampire Lestat Broadway musical to look forward to. | |
| DATE | Wednesday, January 23rd 2008 - 01:28:25 PM | |
| NAME | Shelby | |
| believe_in_the_grey@yahoo.com | ||
COMMENTS |
Overall, it was pretty bad. Definitely not a fan of it. Originally I watched it because I read the book a while back, then found out there was a movie made about it. So automatically I wanted to see it. I rented it and watched it with my mom, and found myself pointing out all of the differences between the two. It was quite disappointing really. It wasn’t remotely close to the book, they changed basically everything, but kept the names. The ending was horrible. Akasha’s bitten to death, turns to dust and makes some screeching Pterodactyl like sound as she’s disintegrating. And the whole hookup at the end between Jesse and Lestat was totally pushing the envelope, they barely knew each other in the book. I could ramble on and on about the major changes made to somehow "better" the movie by the producers, but that would take hours…. In essence, the movie was about some famous vamp rock star, (that just happens to bear the name Lestat) who is being turned against by his own kind for putting himself out there. Then his past comes back to haunt him, in this case Akasha. Then he takes part in defeating the vampire queen, to save humanity. In the movie Akasha barely did anything evil, so, she bled a few people dry and scattered their bodies along the beach, big friggin deal. All that went on between Akasha and Lestat was some bathtub scene. There was nothing about the creation of the vampire race at all, god damnit. It was hugely frustrating, and a total waste of money. The people that threw this movie together, perhaps over a coffee break, should be fired immediately, if your going to spend time basing a movie off of a book, at least keep it accurate. Seriously, if I was Anne Rice, I would sue. They took her book, which she worked countless hours on, and desecrated it. They had so much to work with, and they chose to make one long ass music video instead. I may come across as sounding bitter, but you must READ THE BOOK PEOPLE!!! | |
| DATE | Tuesday, March 27th 2007 - 02:19:17 AM | |
| NAME | Bianca Solderini | |
COMMENTS |
thank god i finally found someone else who hates that movie! i don't think i've EVER seen anything worse... the guy with the carrot-coloured hair and eyeliner was what really pissed me off. but it's all CRAP! | |
| DATE | Monday, October 30th 2006 - 01:13:40 PM | |
| NAME | Mnemony | |
| Mnemony@yahoo.com | ||
| URL | http://www.geocities.com/casino292paris/charity-poker-tournament-running-setting-up-tournament.htm | |
COMMENTS |
You never saw such running tournament up machines tournament vancouver charity poker setting slot | |
| DATE | Wednesday, July 19th 2006 - 01:27:32 AM | |
| NAME | Rebbolia | |
| rebbolia@hotmail.com | ||
COMMENTS |
Queen of the Damned was an insult to Anne Rice's creation. Her books are a masterful example of what horror should be like. Not only was the acting hideous, but it didn't even follow the story of the book. I am appalled, I truly am, at this atrocious waste of money on a shit film that just insults anyone that has read the books.
Also, one thing that made my blood boil, the enigmatic Armand becomes the blonde Mr. State the Obvious guy, "She took Akasha's death onto herself" or something along those lines, Oh Dear, can someone shoot me now. I can't even begin to say all the flaws in this. Ah, Reb stop or you'll kill again. And blonde for Christs sake? Sorry, apologise oh maker of the site who voiced her opinion despite those who would wish to say that this movie was actually good. Lestat is blonde, and the Brat Prince, a damndest creature and yes he is sexy. I'm not saying Stuart Townsend isn't but he did not capture that Lestat essence. This isn't the vampire that would one day proclaim he wanted to be a Saint! No, this is bad acting! Tom Cruise did a better job although I do find many flaws in his portrayel, but any Anne Rice fan would. And where was Gabriel in this film? And Maheret was a twin, and it completely left out so much stuff! Ah, this is just, no...so...ah...And no. I won't continue, I could go on forever. Luckily this film got my brother into the books and now he realises his awful mistake and hails Anne Rice as a fantastic book writer and mistress of Horror, although hasn't she recently turned Christian? Here's one vampire chronicles fan praying to Satan that she will continue to write of Lestat's adventures, and I'm also praying that no other people within the media wish to create shitty film based on one of Anne Rices creations. How did Lestat the musical go? Anyone know? Because if Elton John did the music...well, can he capture horror? Why didn't they recruit Danny Elfman? Ahem...QOTD sucks. | |
| DATE | Monday, June 5th 2006 - 01:04:59 PM | |
| NAME | Mixed Berry, trail mix bar.. mmm | |
COMMENTS |
Dude, who the fuck cares. The part of Lestat was played PERFECTLY, HAHA YEAH BITCHES. Perfectly. Yes. Who the fuck cares about the blonde wig, and I was under the impression Lestat was made because he killed the wolves. Well at least that's what Lestat says himself... but if you don't want to admit it, fine. Was Lestat not sexy in the book? I thought he was fucking sexy as hell in the book, and I'm glad they found an actor who could be as sexy as Lestat was. Unlike Tom Cruise, UGH!!!! He was SO HORRIBLE as Lestat, I couldn't even watch his scenes. But yeah, who the fuck cares about hair. NO ONE seems to care that Louis and Armand's hair colors were fucking switched in IWTV. And Lestat didn't have an accent in Interview =( But he had a fucking sexy voice and nice accent in QOTD. I thought Aaliyah played a perfect Akasha, minus skin color, but who the fuckkkkk cares. She had the cold, eerie stillness and authority of Akasha I imagined when I read the book, when I saw the movie I thought it matched perfectly with what I had read. But really, why the fuck can't someone like this movie? Why do you think it should be destroyed? Maybe some people like to fantasize shit how they want or look for different things in movies. Just because Anne Rice wrote something doesn't mean it's fucking GENIUS and perfect. I mean jesus fucking christ, the vampire can't even have SEX in her books, how fucking boring is that? So just because she wrote it doesn't mean like wow it's godly, she made some pretty AWFUL decisions, like the sex one. So it's up to the imagination to take over. Yeah, after I read that one Jesse/Lestat part in the book where she gets up on stage, fuck that was sexy. I rather liked them as a pair, so I was so glad that they gave them some sexy scenes together in the movie. Who cares if it happened or not, it's just for EXTRA fantasy. I don't really judge the movie on a whole, I enjoy it for the wonderful characters who I now imagine and think of when I read their parts in the book. Yeah, I don't even imagine Lestat with blonde hair anymore, I fucking hate blonde hair, I'm glad he didn't have it in the movie. And it was pretty cool that we got to see Lestat's music videos, and FUCK HIS VOICE WAS SEXY! Is sexy, I mean. The sexiest singing voice coming out of the sexiest man, wow that was a good decision. Oh yeah and Marius, I thought Vincent or whatever was perfect as Marius. He had that intelligence and just I dunno, seemed just like Marius. I liked that he had short hair that was kind of like the Roman thing, the hair he had in the book was fucking GAY, i never liked the really long hair thing unless it's on a younger, sexier guy. I still kind of DON'T GET how you thought Stuart was bad at acting, unless you're like a gay guy trying not to admit you thought he was fucking sexy? He's a wonderful actor, actually, he did quite well with the lines that were given to him. He's good at moving. And speaking. ANd uh just about everything else. So you can continue to hate this movie (I DONT KNOW WHY YOU WOULD ROFL) and I shall continue to view Stuart as Lestat and Aaliyah as Akasha every time I read the books. | |
| DATE | Sunday, August 14th 2005 - 03:58:22 AM | |
| NAME | Alice and Jay | |
| alice_in_loserland@hotmail.com | ||
COMMENTS |
THIS SITE IS SOOOOOOOOO FRIGGIN' KOOL... and very true! The movie was nothing like the book at all! how could Anne STAND THIS!?!?!?! We would be throwing a FIT! Geez we can't believe that they would do that. And you're totally right about the whole cut scene thing I mean that's like the only thing in that whole movie that parshly makes any sence at all (and it still doesn't really make sence XD) But for some reason we find ourselves watching it all the time!!!(because it's really fun to scream at the t.v. and make fun of the lines such as "come out come out where ever you are" and "I am a noble by nature but you may call me Marius" so sad...)
Anyways we luv your site! We think that you should get more pictures of Stewie looking really really really dumb (which he is....) meh byebye | |
| DATE | Sunday, January 9th 2005 - 10:10:41 PM | |
| NAME | ariana | |
COMMENTS |
you obviously don't have much of a life since you made this site. stop bitching! there are better things to do~~~ | |
| DATE | Thursday, November 25th 2004 - 10:37:38 AM | |
| NAME | Morgan | |
| Morgan25@walla.co.il | ||
COMMENTS |
I love you! You are so right!
I was horrified to wtch the movie. Ann Rice should file a law suit against the makers of this film (just like she did to the fan fiction writers, but that's a different bitch). Anyway, I'll just reread the books trying to get the image of hairless Marius off my mind (oh..the horror!) Bless you! | |
| DATE | Friday, October 22nd 2004 - 06:14:45 PM | |
| NAME | Katie | |
| DarkRaven1888@aol.com | ||
| URL | http://destined.to/blacksilver | |
COMMENTS |
I actually used to really like this movie. But, then I read the book and felt extremely cheated, and it pissed me off. The only reason I keep it and don't burn it? Well, I like cheesy horror flicks, don't mind seeing Stuart Townshend in tight pants, and I'm rather fond of the music.
I had also thought Aaliyah was a good actress, because that was the only thing I had to go on, but yes, she did do a pretty awful job. With the accent and the movements, but I can't really fault her. They should've picked a better actress instead of one that would just sell to the masses. As for Stuart Townshend's accent, that's his real accent, only over dramatized ALOT... And, I can see why they over-gothed everything. It's a vampire movie. To movie execs Vampire = Goth = Kaching! And I'm going to admit, I'm very much into Goth and just about every cliche you can think of associated with it, except the "look at me" and "I hate preps" attitude, as I just wear, read, think, and act how I like. Those "ubergoffs" on your review section are just morons for lack of a better word. Immature imbeciles also fits nicely. And I must say, I found you're reviewers section very amusing. I swear, the amount of idiots in this world... But anywho, there you go. I think your site is very informative for the knowledge lacking masses as to what this movie should have been about, and the layout looks pretty good too :)... Ta! | |
| DATE | Tuesday, September 21st 2004 - 10:00:27 PM | |
| NAME | Melissa | |
| fallingintofate@hotmail.com | ||
COMMENTS |
Yesh...I despise that movie...even before I read the book I was disgusted. The special effects are horrid. All my friends say is 'but the soundtrack is great'. Yeah whatever...I thought it was a crap movie...and that's all there is to it. | |
| DATE | Friday, August 20th 2004 - 03:35:30 PM | |
| NAME | An-G | |
| twistedrazor@hotmail.com | ||
| URL | http://www.geocities.com/clarkbar1987 | |
COMMENTS |
you have every right to hate it, but people who like it have a right too. i happen to like it, but i've always loved anything to do with anne rice. i guess its a family thing. i for one hate the movie blade...that was a waste of money and my time... i'm glad to see, however that you have good points to back up you opinion. that's one thing that pisses me off. | |
| DATE | Thursday, August 5th 2004 - 04:39:45 PM | |
| NAME | Aaronlisa | |
| ficathon@yahoo.com | ||
| URL | http://www.purpledandelion.com | |
COMMENTS |
So far this is about the only hatelisting that seems to make sense. I did like the movie as a vampire movie, however when I saw it in the theatre (and even now) I feel betrayed by it. With the exception of the name and a few bits and pieces of things, it really had nothing to do with Anne Rice or her novels. I think the main problem with this book was that it tried to combine "the Vampire Lestat" & "The Queen of the Damned" in a two hour movie and they failed miserably. As a cheesy gothed-up vampire movie, it's okay. Its full of horrible acting & cliches but that's what I would expect from a cheesy gothed-up vampire movie. As a movie based on an excellent novel, it was horrible.
Anyhow I like your site and the time you've taken to explain why you hate the movie. Well done. | |
| DATE | Monday, July 19th 2004 - 02:00:26 PM | |
| NAME | Wendy | |
| wam1@email.arizona.edu | ||
COMMENTS |
I 100% agree with you about how much the movie sucked. Everything was wrong in some way; I mean, I didn't think that anyone could screw up that much, but they proved me wrong. | |
| DATE | Tuesday, May 4th 2004 - 03:12:41 PM | |
| NAME | Bubbly-Chocolat-Nymph | |
| URL | http://www.geocities.com/bubbly_chocolat_nymph/VampH | |
COMMENTS |
Finally, someone who shares my opinion of this ultra-shitty movie! I've had a hate page on my site for a while, check it out: www.geocities.com/bubbly_chocolat_nymph/Sham.html | |
| DATE | Saturday, April 24th 2004 - 08:47:12 PM | |
| NAME | skyfitsheaven | |
| roadrunners804@yahoo.ca | ||
COMMENTS |
You convinced me. I recently reread TVC and after finishing QOTD I was wondering whether seeing the movie would scar me for life. I believe you've answered my question. I'm sure my neighbours will thank you for preventing their untimely deaths when I snapped after the end credits rolled. | |
| DATE | Monday, February 16th 2004 - 08:34:41 PM | |
| NAME | UntrueMoviehater11 | |
| Mathisabracadabr@aol.com | ||
COMMENTS |
I hate that movie too!!! It tells so many lies it is simply unbearable. I can't belive it sold so many copies. Does'nt any one want the truth anymore? | |
| DATE | Friday, February 13th 2004 - 09:25:33 AM | |
| NAME | UntrueMoviehater11 | |
| Mathisabracadabr@aol.com | ||
COMMENTS |
I hate that movie too!!! It tells so many lies it is simply unbearable. I can't belive it sold so many copies. Does'nt any one want the truth anymore? | |
| DATE | Friday, February 13th 2004 - 09:25:29 AM | |
| NAME | UntrueMoviehater11 | |
| Mathisabracadabr@aol.com | ||
COMMENTS |
I hate that movie too!!! It tells so many lies it is simly unbearable. I can't belive it sold so many copies. Does'nt any one want the truth anymore? | |
| DATE | Friday, February 13th 2004 - 09:24:29 AM | |
| NAME | UntrueMoviehater11 | |
| Mathisabracadabr@aol.com | ||
COMMENTS |
I hate that movie too!!! It tells so many lies it is simly unbearable. I can't belive it sold so many copies. Does'nt any one want the truth anymore? | |
| DATE | Friday, February 13th 2004 - 09:22:30 AM | |
| NAME | Riona | |
| HieinoMiko17@aol.com | ||
| URL | http://www.livejournal.com/~darksidestories | |
COMMENTS |
Hey, I got here from the Anti-QotD Community.
Not to sound creepy, but can I give you a hug for making this site? | |
| DATE | Saturday, December 27th 2003 - 07:23:08 AM | |
| NAME | Asia | |
| mizfit_asiachris@punkmusic.com | ||
| URL | http://whisperykiss.com/asia | |
COMMENTS |
Yes, I hate this movie to. It sucks. But, im not going to join this hatelisting because not everyone who listens to AFI (or whatever other band you listed) thinks they are goth, thats one little thing i have about it. Nothing against anything about this site. Its just that i'm defensive about music, and the little things just tell me stupid stuff. Its a very nicely put together and greatly organized site, hats off to you. :) | |
| DATE | Wednesday, December 24th 2003 - 05:45:31 PM | |
| NAME | BloodFairy | |
COMMENTS |
The music was not bad, and that's the best I can say of the movie.
I wonder if they ever read the books. On the other hand, they must have, because everything about it seemed messed up on purpose! | |
| DATE | Wednesday, December 10th 2003 - 08:42:47 AM | |
| NAME | James | |
| jameshoule666@hotmail.com | ||
COMMENTS |
u hate the movie so do i but i do have to say that the sound track rules im me at xiamthepainx on aim bye | |
| DATE | Monday, December 1st 2003 - 11:47:44 AM | |
| NAME | Zoey | |
COMMENTS |
I just want to say... I love you. I love you very, very much. | |
| DATE | Thursday, November 20th 2003 - 02:14:58 PM | |
| NAME | Zoey | |
COMMENTS |
I just want to say... I love you. I love you very, very much. | |
| DATE | Thursday, November 20th 2003 - 12:42:34 PM | |
| NAME | Sarah | |
COMMENTS |
I agree with you oh maker of website! | |
| DATE | Wednesday, November 19th 2003 - 04:58:25 PM | |
| NAME | Webmistress | |
COMMENTS |
Just breaking in the Guestbook... | |
| DATE | Friday, November 7th 2003 - 09:56:36 PM | |