*SPOILERS WITHIN*
I am a big fan of Anne Rice. I've read all the books, but i haven't seen 'Interview with a Vampire' simply because i had no will after reading the book. But something drove me down to my local Blockbuster to rent "Queen of the Damned"
And after about an hour through i wanted to throw something at the t.v. The movie, standing alone, would've been great. But saying that this movie is based off the book is laughable. The only thing they did was take some names, and slapped the title on it.
There are numerous differences between the two. More importantly, they left out the story of the twins, which is basically half the story. Sure, they had Maharet, but even she didn't play a significant role other than take the last drop of Akasha's blood, to which she turned into stone. Even so, Akasha didn't even die like that in the book!
Marius made Lestat??? That got me confused because i know for a fact that it didn't quite happen that way. What about the ancients?? They were on screen for about 3 minutes. And some of them died. That's funny, because in the book, none of the Ancients ( or Daniel and Jessie ) died after Mekare ( Maharet's twin in the book ) killed Akasha.
I do realise that this is supposed to be 2 books in one. But i don't quite see how "The Vampire Lestat" is there at all, except for his arising and being made ( But even that was different ). They should have just made each book into a movie.
This movie would have been great if it wasn't 'supposidly' based off the book. But it is, so i have come to the conclusion that if you have read the book, don't expect much of the story line to be in the movie.
**/ out of 5
I am a big fan of Anne Rice. I've read all the books, but i haven't seen 'Interview with a Vampire' simply because i had no will after reading the book. But something drove me down to my local Blockbuster to rent "Queen of the Damned"
And after about an hour through i wanted to throw something at the t.v. The movie, standing alone, would've been great. But saying that this movie is based off the book is laughable. The only thing they did was take some names, and slapped the title on it.
There are numerous differences between the two. More importantly, they left out the story of the twins, which is basically half the story. Sure, they had Maharet, but even she didn't play a significant role other than take the last drop of Akasha's blood, to which she turned into stone. Even so, Akasha didn't even die like that in the book!
Marius made Lestat??? That got me confused because i know for a fact that it didn't quite happen that way. What about the ancients?? They were on screen for about 3 minutes. And some of them died. That's funny, because in the book, none of the Ancients ( or Daniel and Jessie ) died after Mekare ( Maharet's twin in the book ) killed Akasha.
I do realise that this is supposed to be 2 books in one. But i don't quite see how "The Vampire Lestat" is there at all, except for his arising and being made ( But even that was different ). They should have just made each book into a movie.
This movie would have been great if it wasn't 'supposidly' based off the book. But it is, so i have come to the conclusion that if you have read the book, don't expect much of the story line to be in the movie.
**/ out of 5
Tell Your Friends