Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Edwin The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Phillida Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Paul Magne Haakonsen "Queen of the Damned" is a vampire movie that sort of have me divided into two camps. The first is that the movie is actually fun and entertaining enough, and it does have some nice aspects to it. The second is that "Queen of the Damned" is actually one of the corniest and most stereotypical of vampire movies out there.Now, I haven't read the book upon which this movie is based and sculpted, so how true the events and characters were to what Anne Rice constructed, I have no idea.The story in "Queen of the Damned" is about Lestat, a vampire coming out in the open and proclaiming himself a vampire to the world in conjunction with promoting his band. A ruse to call out the elder vampires."Queen of the Damned" is entertaining enough for what it turned out to be. Campy and cheesy, certainly, but there still was something entertaining to it. However, the storyline was bordering on being ridiculous and did have some gaping plot holes here and there. And there is a frightful similarity between the Lestat and Jesse characters and the Edward and Bella from "Twilight". And that sort of was just ridiculous.It is the atmosphere of the movie that works out for the best, because there is sort of a gloomy goth-like atmosphere to the movie."Queen of the Damned" feels like a fan service movie through and through. And the movie never shook that mantle, and it wasn't particularly promoting the enjoyment of the movie.Stuart Townsend (playing Lestat) was really carrying this movie, and this was definitely his movie in every aspect. And while Aaliyah certainly was great in the villainous role (playing Queen Akasha), then it was hard to take her serious when she was moving. Vincent Perez (playing Marius) was also adding a lot of flavor to the movie, despite having a minor role also.This is an entertaining enough movie, but hardly a vampire movie that stands out as being memorable.

Prismark10 Whereas Neil Jordan's Interview with a Vampire was baroque, overlong and filled with 'A' listers or potential 'A' listers.Queen of the Damned on the other hand contains 'B' listers or those who never even reached those heady heights. It is a Goth Rock horror film. Vampire Lestat (Stuart Townsend) awakes from a long nap into a changed world and becomes a rock star as we enter the world of Goth clubs where he constantly gets attacked by other vampires.A paranormal librarian investigates this new rock singer believing him to be a vampire and an ancient Egyptian queen comes back to life, awaken by Lestat's music.The film is just poorly plotted and uninteresting. It lacks the budget and imagination Jordan brought to the first film and it really is sloppy seconds without any of the camp.

jlcdwmartin In comparing both "Interview" and "Queen", one can say definitely that Tom and Stuart both had an excellent time "chewing up the scenery".Who was the better actor to portray Lestat? Tom or Stuart? Let us be certain of one thing: Many different actors will play the role, just as in Shakespeare, over the centuries, different actors have portrayed Hamlet and Richard III.We know that Lestat was only about age 20 when he was turned into a vampire. I'll have to give the gold star to Stuart in that direction.One is often reminded of the comment by Maharet at the end of the novel "Queen of the Damned" to Lestat about writing his autobiography, "Get it right". Despite all the variances from the established plot line, I would say that both films capture the ambiance and the tension inherent in all of the first three novels of the Vampire Chronicles.In the movie "Queen", there is that telling scene where Lestat gives Jesse an "op-ed" practical example "of what it is all about", when in the park, he chases away the glasses-wearing vampire and takes the intended victim for himself.CHOMP!Good night! Pleasant dreams!

FlashCallahan Lestat de Lioncourt is awakened from his slumber and bored with his existence, has now become this generations new Rock God. While in the course of time, another has arisen, Akasha, the Queen of the Vampires and the Damned. He want's immortal fame, his fellow vampires want him eternally dead for his betrayal, and the Queen want's him for her King. Who will be the first to reach him and Who shall win the final battle of the vampires and survive.......There are some films that never need a sequel, despite the fact hat the first was based on a best selling collection. Interview With A Vampire was a phenomenal movie, and changed the way the vampire movie was imagined for a few years.It was classy, sultry, and Cruise conquered the screen as Lestat.So eight years later, this movie was as welcome as a hole in the head, and was just a blatant cash in for those good ol' greedy folk at Warner Bros'I haven't read the scourge material, and forgive me if I'm wrong, but who in the right mind would bring back a very sinister signature character, and have him try to conquer his race by becoming a Rock Star. In the hands of Rea, its possible that it could have been something, and he may have coaxed Cruise back in the title role, but no, we get an out of his depth Townsend trying to emulate the panache cruise had with ease eight years prior.And despite his best efforts, it's no surprises that he fails, and the fact he is carrying the film only adds insult, the audience know he isn't Cruise, so detach away from him.And I don't want to speak ill of the dead, but Aaliyah is awful in her role, and spends her screen time movie really strangely and hissing her lines.It's a worthless sequel, most of the cast know this, and I feel sorry for Townsend, he's a decent actor otherwise.