Hi, my name is Jonathan Denard McNeair and I grew up in Lexington, North Carolina, also known as Pig City...Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha...The town is mostly known for its barbeque where they often throw barbeque festivals every October. In my chosen career, I am a self-published author of fiction.
Hey everybody, just wanted to give a quick update. I'm afraid I have to do a late Halloween review. there's a lot to talk about when it comes to the Scream series, so I'm putting a lot of thought, time, and research with a pretty hectic week, so rest is very important. But on the bright side, I am in the process of editing A Change Would Do You Good and I even have some more reviews for you guys to check out. Here's my list:
I've just heard that Paramount Pictures just made an announcement that they are producing a fifth Scream installment. How do I feel about this? I don't know. This is actually the first Scream film without the involvement of Wes Craven and even Kevin Williamson. I feel like without the collaboration of Craven and Williamson, It's just not going to capture the sharp wit and suspense of the first film. At least we have our core three leads back: Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, and David Arquette. Their characters have become a legacy in this franchise and that's quite an achievement.
But I want to go back to the movie that started it all. Scream is one of those movies that was ingrained in my childhood. The parodies, the inside jokes, the Ghostface costume that became a staple in Halloween stores. The hype was completely overblown.
I've seen trailers, tv spots, clips, and whatnot, though I never saw the movie itself. But it was at the age of ten where I got to watch the whole movie in its entirety. I was shocked at how visceral the violence was. It was actually, dare I say, scary because it wasn't your typical horror movie. It was intensely realistic. Now I've first watched I Know What You Did Last Summer when I was around seven years old and watched half of Wes Craven's New Nightmare when I was eight. And yeah those movies scared me but it didn't scare me as much as Scream did. Hell, I was still too scared to watch A Nightmare On Elm Street back then and have yet checked out the Friday The 13th films. I had to grow into Horror movies a bit, I wasn't an early bird like most kids. But at age eleven, I saw the fun in watching horror movies, even the ones that really, really scared me. At age 12, I was hooked. Age 13-14, the rest is history. And in between those stages in my life, Scream was the movie I watched the most.
Out of all the horror movies I've seen, Scream was a different experience for me. It felt very grounded. It felt very real. The characters were framed as actually relatable and there was a sense of authenticity that we don't see in most 80s slashers. They are now self-aware of the conventions and feel as though they're immune to it. The commentary on horror movies became a staple in the late 90s and brought in a breath of fresh air that was needed in the genre. However, Scream was not without its copycats, which I myself watched every now and then. Certain people would look back at Scream and cringe at the characters' dialogue where they constantly make movie references. But I feel like that's where the movie's charm comes from, demonstrating how the characters are comparing their lives to a movie that they themselves can't figure out.
At this time, I"m only going to focus on the first three films. I might do Scream 4 a little later into this year but I have to tell you that my opinions on Scream 4 have changed a little bit. I still enjoy Scream 4, however, there are some things I'm iffy about when it comes to that sequel. The first three films for me feels like a solid trilogy where you get to learn and explore with the three lead characters of Sidney, Gale, and Dewy with an ongoing theme based on sensationalism, which is rare for a slasher film series. Not only that, the mystery is pretty tight and does keep you invested with a well-enough pace, alongside the late great Wes Craven piling on the suspense with a pulsating atmosphere.
Gosh, I would go on and on about how great these movies are...well, at least the first two. Still not a fan of Scream 3 but I'll tell you my reason when I get to that review.
First and foremost, I present to you, on this Hallows eve, The film that changed the face of horror...
It has now come to this. They finally went through with a Craft Reboot of sorts. Well, it's not really a reboot, it's more of a spiritual sequel in a way. It's hard to explain.
So, the trailer starts off with the main character, moving into a new town to live with her mom's new boyfriend and three sons. It's very identical to the original where Sarah moves to Los Angeles at the start of the movie.
How the main character meets the three girls is actually through an embarrassing experience. The scene implies that she has her period in front of a classroom of students. Everyone is laughing except the three main girls, identifying as our coven in the movie. Right off the bat, they accept her, showing a surprising amount of empathy. Okay, that's one thing I do like about the trailer. It's comparable to the cold reception Nancy and the three girls in the original film give to Sarah when she first meets them but I guess that's supposed to demonstrate their sudden betrayal in the climax.
As the trailer continues, they give the girl a ceremonial bath, christening her as their fourth. This suddenly enhances their magic, the main character being the most powerful of them all. But with great power comes with great irresponsibility as the main character's thirst for dominance becomes too hard to handle.
Okay, at least I do see that they do things differently this time. When I heard the announcement that Blumhouse was going to remake The Craft, I cringed. Okay, I would say they did an okay job with the Halloween Reboot, not the best but way better than the sequels and the Rob Zombie remakes. But this is also the same studio who made the second Black Christmas Remake, which I have not heard good things about. I really wasn't looking forward to it. I always felt that the Craft worked well on its own, particularly in the time period it was set in. It's one of those lightning-in-the-bottle types of movies that didn't need sequels or remakes. Is it perfect? No, but it's still entertaining with a charming cast of female leads.
But in this day in age, we are getting an influx of year-gap sequels and reboots. So due to the cult following of the 1996 film, a second movie was in the works.
The first thing I noticed was that David Duchovny, of all people, was in the movie....as the dad character, no less. We also have Michelle Monaghan, who I haven't seen in a while, as the main character's mom. I don't know if their roles are significant or not, but we'll see.
The main girl is sort of a mix of Sarah and Nancy. One clue is that she is the new girl in town, starting off shy and repressed. But as the trailer progresses, she gets more powerful and becomes a bit arrogant. She even recites one of Nancy's classic lines. Yeah, let me talk about that. That was one thing about the trailer that threw me off, which makes me think that this is a sequel disguised as a remake.
They somehow include a photo of Nancy in the trailer (which doesn't look real by the way) but it never entirely explains how much of importance she has in the story. Is she related to one of the characters? Is she a distant cousin of the main girl? I'm scratching my head here. In my opinion, I wish they would've left this out to be a surprise in the movie. This is what annoys me about these trailers because they want to constantly shove in easter eggs to remind the audience of the original film. The callbacks just makes the sequel seem like a cash grab and that's a shame. In the first few seconds of the trailer, I was actually invested in what new ideas that would bring into this movie.
For instance, we have the coven leader played by Lovie Simone. The difference between her and Nancy is that she actually comes off as caring and intentive. She also guides the girls with full knowledge of the craft, kind of like the character of Lirio. She could be put into a position where warns the main girl not to take advantage of her powers.
But as soon as the main girl gets corrupted, the coven leader must do what she can to stop her wrath. That would be an interesting enough twist. If the trailer just left it like that, I would be singing a different tune right now. I'm not sure how the other two girls would be portrayed in the movie but let's hope they have more development than how Bonnie and Rochelle were handled, in which by the end of the 1996 film, they are no more than cackling minions to Nancy.
Though my question is: are the four main leads believable as outcasts? I"m sort of in the middle with this one.
While the girls in the original movie were beautiful, they were also believable as outcasts but with this version, the girls look a bit...polished. And that's what I was afraid of. That this version would strip away any edge the original had.
As demonstrated in this photo here, the girls look like they're posing in a photo shoot for Seventeen magazine. Maybe the performances will tell otherwise, but again, they look a little too prim and proper by comparison.
So now I am down to my final thoughts. Will I watch this? Maybe, but not right now. It's not the type of movie that I will go rush to see. If something like this was done a couple of years earlier, I might. But since there are so many of these year-gap sequels, I might have to sit and wait for this one.
Woah boy, there is a lot to unpack here. This is what I call an EPIC review. I must confess, I do actually own this movie. Not because it's good, mind you, but because since I"m a fan of Aaliyah's, it's one of the few treasures I keep of her.
This movie took years of development. After the success of Interview With The Vampire, Anne Rice and the studio heads begin clashing over how to adapt The Vampire Lestat and Queen Of The Damned.
After the ending of Interview, the movie is left open for a sequel to continue on with Lestat and Daniel. But during the years of development, Tom Cruise declined to return for the role of Lestat, scrambling for execs to make another move. Neil Jordan was in the process of making the sequel, The Vampire Lestat, but it fell through.
So it was around 1998 when initial meetings to adapt the two novels began. A LOT of plot elements was cut out and Anne Rice was extremely unhappy with the results. It's one of the many examples of a movie studio screwing over the actual writer of the source material. They didn't even invest her time into being the screenwriter of the film, which in my opinion, would've helped.
It was somewhere between 1999 and 2000 where pre-production started WITHOUT the consultation of Anne Rice. Seriously, they needed her helping hand but oh well.
The result is...kind of a mess.
The filmmakers decided to combine both The Vampire Lestat and Queen Of The Damned. This caused to lose a lot of important characters in these two novels: Gabrielle de Lioncourt, Nicolas de Lenfent, Magnus, Santino, Eric, Aaron Lightner, Daniel Molloy, Makere, and especially Louis de Pointe du Lac.
Okay, let me explain the plot of the two novels. Again, spoiler alert for those of you who haven't read The Vampire Lestat and Queen Of The Damned, so take a lookout if you can.
Let's start with The Vampire Lestat:
The story follows the character of Lestat de Lioncourt from his early days as an impoverished nobleman to his triumphs as a vampiric 1980's rock star. In the novel, he meets and falls in love with aspiring violinist Nicolas de Lenfent where they live together in the streets of Paris, trying to make it as artists.
One night, Lestat is kidnapped and bitten by the elder vampire Magnus, who kills himself in a pit of fire and leaves Lestat his fortune. Let me stop here...
In the movie, Marius is the one who finds and sires Lestat. And there is no mention of Nicolas, so I guess Marius takes that role as well. Let's continue.
To protect Nicolas and his family from his new vampiric lifestyle, Lestat abandons them to seeking out into his own journey as a working actor in Paris. To make up for this, he showers them with gifts and promises in written letters. However, he soon hears the news of his beloved mother's sickness, and through an act of desperation, he sires his mother from an agonizing death. And here's another pause...
Gabrielle was one of the most intriguing characters of the book yet she is nowhere to be found in the movie. There's also no mention of Lestat's father, who actually appeared in the book version of Interviewor his five brothers. So without Lestat not having a family at all, I guess Marius takes on the role of Gabrielle as well. Moving on...
Lestat and his mother continue their adventures in Paris until he is threatened by the vampire coven Children Of Darkness run by their leader Armand/Amadeo for exposing himself as a vampire during a performance at the Paris theater. So the coven kidnaps and tortures Nicolas to punish Lestat. After a heated debate between Armand and his cronies over the old laws of their kind, Lestat and Gabrielle rescue Nicolas, however, Nicolas' sanity is never recovered. Lestat reluctantly turns Nicolas into a vampire but at the cost of their companionship. And so, Lestat gives Nicolas the ownership of the Theatre des Vampires bringing along the surviving members of The Children Of Darkness as the actors. He and Gabrielle decide to leave Paris and have Nicolas in Armand's care. But Nicolas becomes increasingly erratic and difficult to deal with, unable to conceal his vampiric nature. Armand constrains him in a cell and cuts off his hands to prevent him from playing his violin so manically. Nicolas demands to perform a funeral sacrifice for him or else he'll burn down the theater. The coven agrees and sets up a sabbat where Nicolas dances into the fire, committing suicide. Nicolas' prized violin is sent to Lestat as a keepsake. Armand finds Lestat and Gabrielle where he tells them of the ancient times before vampires were made and how he was saved and sired by the ancient vampire scholar and painter Marius from poverty and slavery. Until The Children Of Darkness led by the vampire Santino invades their home, putting Marius on fire and kidnapping Armand. Through months of psychological torture, Armand gives into the beliefs of the coven, eventually gaining enough knowledge to become the newly ordained leader of The Children Of Darkness. Marius has recovered from his injuries but is said to be somewhere in the Mediterranean islands. Intrigued by the idea of Marius, Lestat carves hidden messages on a rock, hoping Marius might find him. Let me mention that Armand is a vital part of the story, yet, in the movie, he's cut down to a side character. More on that later...
Abandoned by Gabrielle as she sets off to the jungles of Africa, Lestat goes into a slumber for a couple of years after being moderately burned by the sun. But he is soon found by Marius where he stays at his mansion by the Mediterranean islands. Marius begins to tell Lestat of his past. He was a roman scholar who was captured and sired by the God of the Groves. Marius is instructed to travel to Egpyt to become the new caretakers of Those Who Must Be Kept, the original vampires, Akasha and Enkil.
There is in no way, shape, or form, they were going to fit this backstory into the movie. But then again, we know nothing of Marius, other than the fact that he is just some random vampire who chose Lestat to be sired.
And what about the scene when Lestat awakens Akasha with the strum of his violin? No, it's not like in the movie where Lestat just randomly finds a violin. It was actually Nicolas' violin that awakes Akasha. So yeah, Nicolas was an important part of the story but within the development of the film, there was no way he could fit into the narrative. Though it would explain why Lestat chose Louis in Interview because he reminds him so much of Nicolas yet Louis isn't in the movie so it doesn't matter anyway.
The full gist of the movie is Lestat as a rock star. Sure, that's what drives the plot because Lestat uses his celebrity to reveal that vampires do indeed exist but we never fully get into the detail of Lestat's life like the book did.
So let's get into Queen Of The Damned:
The main source of the plot is about the red-haired twins. Pretty much all of the characters who are connected to the story have vivid dreams of the red-haired twins, which eventually brings them all together in the narrative. None of this is in the film adaptation, even though, in the book, there is a lot of backstory between The Twins and Akasha. Okay, let me break it down:
1. Maharet is in the movie but Mekare isn't
2. The only interaction Maharet has with Akasha is at the climax of the movie, forgetting that Akasha in the book did some pretty horrid things to Maharet and her sister, prompting Makere, appearing out of nowhere, to exact revenge on Akasha at the end of the novel.
So there was a chunk left out of the movie, and sure, the filmmakers probably cut down some of the plot to give the movie a flow but time is this movie's enemy to which the character of Makere would have trouble fitting into the narrative. There was so much to explore with this and it was disappointing how the filmmakers unjustly neglected it.
Okay, let's break down the characters because that's the REAL reason why fans are so upset with this adaptation.
First and foremost, let's start with Lestat. As you can see, he definitely does not fit the description of Anne Rice's vision.
In her own words, she insisted on making sure Lestat had blond hair and blue eyes, but no, the filmmakers went against her word. To be honest, this version of Lestat resembles more of Nicolas de Lenfent. During the process of casting after Tom Cruise declined to reprise his role, plenty of young, promising actors were considered.
Josh Hartnett. He definitely would capture Lestat's charm and sensuality.
The late, great Heath Ledger. Yes, he definitely would've been a perfect choice. Since he had a breakthrough role in The Knight's Tale, the role of Lestat would've been right up his alley, capturing Lestat's presence and sex appeal.
Wes Bently. I think I would agree on this one too. He does have that sort of icy vampire look about him and would've worked well with what he was given.
But this all boils down to Stuart Townsend. Fun Fact!
There is a character named after him in her novel, The Witching Hour, which has connections to the Vampire Chronicles series. By the way, I'm reading the book right now!
Anywho, Stuart Townsend was...meh. I do think he's a good enough actor, I've seen him in movies and television shows where he is really good. But unfortunately, his performance in Queen Of The Damned falls flat. What I like about Tom Cruise's performance in Interview was that he gave a sort of grace to his acting. He wasn't cartoonish or over-the-top. However, with Stuart Townsend, his performance comes off a bit hammy. He just wasn't convincing to me.
If you think they got the description of Lestat wrong, wait till you see Marius. He is described as having icy blue eyes and pale-white blond hair but the actor, Vincent Perez, has green eyes and short brown hair. His characterization was all over the place. In the book, although he is a vampire, he has high morals, adamant about never harming innocents.
Marius in the film version is Nicolas, Gabrielle, and even Lestat rolled into one. He never has a clear, distinct personality that separates from the other vampires and it's confusing to tell whether he's morally good like he was in the novel. Not to mention he and Armand have an intense, loving relationship, which is never explored in the movie.
As for the actor Vincent Perez, he's good with what he's given and knows what type of movie he's in.
Here we have Jesse Reeves. Oh, Jesse. Dear lord, Jesse. If the filmmakers succeeded in ruining a character, Jesse Reeves would be at the top spot. She has been relegated to the ultimate film cliche: The Bland Love Interest. It's unfortunate because I actually think that Jesse Reeves is one of the most interesting characters of the novel and she's sort of treated like the audience surrogate. There is a lot to break down with her.
First off we are never properly introduced to her. She just happens to work for The Talamasca and she just happens to know about the secret world of vampires. There is no ounce of character development other than the fact that she's related to Maharet, who is her great, great, great, great grandmother. Not to mention, Jesse is described as being between the age of 34 and 35 in the novel. In the film adaptation, she looks to be around college-aged. The actress playing her was around 24 at the time. I think this would've worked best if Jesse just graduated from college and she just happens to run into Aaron Lightner who gives her an apprenticeship at The Talamasca. Speaking of which, in the book, the reason why The Talamasca chose her because of her family heritage and secret psychic powers where she can also contact spirits. The film in no way shows that Jesse has psychic powers. And in the movie, it shows Jesse reading Lestat's diary as a way to connect to Lestat's narrative. But in the book, she reads Claudia's diary and even encounters her ghost at the townhouse of Lestat's coven.
Since we got into the topic of Lestat, I have no idea why they would make Jesse his love interest. To be honest, he has no chemistry with her and the romance feels a little forced. I never bought it. The only interaction Jesse has with Lestat in the novel is her briefly making out with him at his concert and towards the climax. I guess the filmmakers thought that since she is a primary protagonist of the book it would make sense to make her the love interest in the movie.
Okay, I might spoil things but Lestat in the movie isn't the one who sires Jesse. It was actually her aunt Maharet when she gets injured by a vampire at Lestat's concert and gets turned halfway through the story rather than the ending of the movie.
Marguerite Moreau was a bit bland. No-fault against her since the script doesn't really give her much to do. Here, you have a character with so much backstory, so much character development yet she is reduced to a typical Damsel in Distress Love Interest. And don't get me wrong, I've seen this actress in much better projects where she has a good enough range but unfortunately, in this film, she gives a rather dull performance.
Lena Olin was sadly wasted as Maharet. She is yet another important character of the book who is unjustly cut down to avoid pacing issues. The filmmakers also seem to forget that Maharet had a twin sister in the novel which was very vital to the plot.
Let's break it down:
Maharet and Mekare were these two ancient witches who were the sole reason why vampires exist. You see, there were these mysterious spirits they would call upon. Energies, so to speak. Some good. Some bad. Their special talent attracted the attention of Akasha and Enkil, The queen and king of Kemet, Egypt, offering them to visit their kingdom. The twin sisters refused, sensing something sinister about them. But their second visit came in the form of brutal violence once they discover the twins' familial ritual of eating their dead mother's heart and brain, accusing them of being savages. And so, Maharet and Makere endured senseless acts of torture and later sexual assault by the king's steward Khayman, by the orders of the king and queen. This resulted in Maharet becoming pregnant. Makere, through an act of revenge, called upon the spirit Amel, a spirit with a taste for blood. The spirit targets the king and queen and it just happens that a vengeful army attacks and stabs both of them, causing the spirit to turn them into the First Blood Drinkers. Furious at what the curse did to them, the queen sentence the twins to execution, cutting one's tongue out and gouging one's eyes out. Khayman feeling guilty over his part in the rape, helps the twins by siring them, eventually becoming some sort of Witch-Vampire hybrid. The twins were later put into stone coffins, drifting off into the ocean. Makere heading west and Maharet heading east. Ever since then, Maharet has been searching for Makere where she contacted an archeologist to look for her findings.
There was no way the filmmakers would fit this all into one movie. It's a shame. The story of the twins is what drove the plot forward.
However, the situation with Makere is that she only shows up until the climax of the book to get her revenge on Akasha where her and Maharet perform their ceremonial ritual of eating the queen's brain and heart. And so it is actually Makere who becomes the new Queen Of The Damned.
The climax in the movie, however, wraps up things pretty quickly and after Akasha is defeated, Maharet, somehow, turns into a statue in waiting slumber. I...guess that make sense even though I can't wrap my mind of how Maharet just suddenly is waved off in the narrative.
David Talbot, played by Paul McGann, was barely in the movie as well, even though, he is the head of The Talamasca. Not to mention, he looks a lot much younger than his book counterpart who looks to be in his 40's than his early 80's. They try to fit him in the movie as much as they can but he still comes off as unimportant to the story.
Now we have Armand, Mael, Khayman, and Pandora who are reduced to throwaway side characters. You never know who they are because they just randomly show up at Lestat's concert with no introduction. Unless you read the movie credits, that's all you'll get out of these characters is just their names.
Okay, let's start with Armand. It seemed that he changed his appearance since the last movie, somehow, miraculously fitting the description of his book counterpart.
But if this was an official sequel to Interview, some viewers may find it confusing to how he suddenly has red curly hair and, somehow, morphed into a teenager. Most of his story arc in Queen Of The Damned involves Daniel Molloy. Daniel, adamant to find Lestat in New Orleans, encounters Armand in Lestat's house. They sort of have an on and off romantic relationship, traveling from England, New York City, and Miami. But then Armand finds Daniel dying from alcohol poisoning, after crashing from hotel to hotel. That's when Armand turns him into a vampire while on a plane to San Francisco. I found the relationship interesting and would've made a compelling story of its own. However, seeing that the film adaptation of Interview ended with Lestat and Daniel, it would've been cool to see their dynamic on-screen, with Lestat reaching his status as a rock star while Daniel will be his trusty assistant, writing his biography and being his personal publicist. But sadly, Daniel is nowhere to be found in this movie, and Armand is reduced to a minor character, pretty much forgetting the fact that it's established in the Vampire Chronicles that he is one of the main characters.
Khayman was also a very important character. In the book, he was the king and queen's chief steward and is actually the biological father of Maharet's child. He has obviously no lines in the film and is unceremoniously killed after he drinks Akasha's blood.
Mael, too, was very substantial character in Maharet and Marius' case. He was the druid priest who abducted Marius to be the New God Of The Grove and protected of Those Who Must Be Kept. He is also the lifelong companion of Maharet and seeks to protect Jesse's well being. Just like Khayman, he has no lines at all and he is quickly dispatched after drinking Akasha's blood.
Lastly, we have Pandora who serves as an initial character in the novel. She is one of Marius' cherished lovers and sets foot on her own journey to discover Akasha's return and rescues Marius after being injured by Akasha. She actually has her own spin-off novel where her backstory is told in full detail. You think that the filmmakers would consider keeping her alive. But nope. They give her the ax without any interaction with Marius.
Such a shame how these characters were wasted in this film.
But now the time has come to save the best for last. The grand role of Queen Akasha was truly an important one. Now I have to assume the casting possibilities were just rumors but let's break it down anyway...
Halle Berry was an ideal choice being the most sought-after actresses in Hollywood and even won an oscar upon the release of Queen Of The Damned. She is a good actress but I can't help but compare to her lackluster performance as Storm in the X-Men films and her cringy performance as Catwoman, a few years later. I'm thinking of how she would portray Akasha. Would she be hammy or over-the-top? I can't seem to get my mind around that. I feel like with roles like Storm and Catwoman, you have to have a command or some type of elegance, and seeing how Halle Berry portrays these characters, I don't think she would be the right fit for Akasha.
Jada Pinkett Smith was also an ideal choice. She would mostly capture the presence of Akasha, being fierce and intimidating like a lioness on the prowl.
Then there's pop singer Samantha Mumba who would later appear in a film adaptation of a novel, The Time Machine. I never have seen her act before, but I can see her fitting into the role.
Vivica A. Fox is a maybe for me. I never really saw her play a villain before if you count films like Batman and Robin or Kill Bill, but she's a good enough actress to be an ideal choice.
Rosario Dawson has a command about her that would've embraced Akasha's majesty.
Vanessa Williams would've been a possible runner-up. Her elegance and divine versatility would bring a charming yet venomous layer to the role with icy goodness. But...
Aaliyah was made for this role. She was by far the best part of this movie. But let's focus on the character of Akasha first. She is way more blood-thirsty and ruthless than her film counterpart, even BEFORE she becomes a vampire. She is an extreme misandrist, going so far as to kill her king in order to rule her vampire clan. I really don't want to go into graphic detail of she annihilates half of the male population in the book but it is brutal, her blood-thirst knows no bounds.
Though all my praise will go to Aaliyah's portrayal as Akasha. She was definitely fit for this role and it's the only second one after starring in Romeo Must Die.
Her performance was everything! Sure, she only appears in the movie halfway through but her powerful presence alone sets a certain command to her masterful range. And to be honest, I think she had better chemistry with Stuart Townsend than Marguerite Moreau.
When she has her introduction, it's like, "Step aside! The Queen has arrived!" It was truly magical to watch. Aaliyah exudes royalty and embraces her soul as a regal, majestical Egyptian ruler. Just look at this scene here. It says it all...
This was her last hurrah and I will forever congratulate her for making this role hers and doing it her own way. All Hail Aaliyah, Long Live The Queen.
Now let's talk about the music, which is the most important aspect of the book and movie. The music in the film has this Goth/Nu-metal sort of style, similar to musical acts like Korn, Orgy, The Deftones, and Marilyn Manson. Boy, has music changed since then. I think the filmmakers used this sort of music to appeal to a teenaged demographic, who are mainly associated with that type of genre. You see the time where The Vampire Lestat and Queen Of The Damned was set in was very specific. The years the novels were released was between 1985 and 1988. By the time Lestat became a rock star, it was the year 1984.
In the early 80s, there was this fashion trend called The New Romantic look where rockstars would dress in these 17-century outfits resembling a modern-day Mozart. In addition to that, rock concerts were made to be more theatrical, operatic, and cinematic.
This is why Lestat would fit well into this era, eluding to singer Adam Ant, David Vanin, lead singer of The Damned (no pun intended), singer Sting, and the singer Prince. So I think this would've worked better if the movie was set in the 80s, which would make it less dated than it is but I digress.
The writing is really poor. The original script has problems with pacing and was losing a lot of focus on the story. The shooting script is a lot much than perceived giving it much more flow but it leaves out a lot of character development and most of the story is cut and dry until Akasha arrives. For instance, Lestat's backstory is basically a retread of Interview With The Vampire, lacking most of the meat of his story on the waste side. The writers also seem to forget there was a character in the novel called Baby Jenks who gets killed by Akasha early into the story and Lestat has dreams of her dying. But then again, there were too many characters in the novel that wouldn't make it in this hour-long film. Sure, the book has it's problems too, especially with the unresolved tension between Armand, Santino, and Marius. But there wasn't too much to hold onto when it came to developing Lestat and Jesse who appears to be the main characters of the movie in favor of more action and suspense.
The script was written by TV writers and I could tell. This feels like a TV movie with high production values. I was not impressed with the special effects, especially when it comes to vampire abilities. When they fly or run at a fast pace, it has this really bad and extremely dated slow-motion effect that makes the movie look cheap. And there's no detail in the vampire makeup. Just plain ole pale skin without any originality or imaginative spark.
The directing is so, so. Boy, do they needed Neil Jordan for this because most of the directing was pretty bland and run-of-the-mill. The director is mostly known for his work on Battlestar Galactica, so his sort of directing style could fit at home for an action movie but not for a gothic horror melodrama that Anne Rice created.
Seriously, everything from the acting, the writing, the production value, just seemed bland and forgettable and only Aaliyah was the one who actually brought life into the movie. It's really disappointing how this film turned out.
Anne felt that this would've worked better as a miniseries and I totally agree with her. Queen Of The Damned was set up to be this epic turning point for all the characters to join as one. And I feel there should've been more build-up to it with a prequel attached before what was to be Queen Of The Damned. There were too many poor choices and too many setbacks that made this film a butchered mess.
Let's hope in the future (*wink wink*) that if an adaptation of this story is in the works, there needs to be proper care and consideration put into what made the Vampire Chronicles so fascinating. Let's hope that...it's done right this time.
My Last Word: If you're a fan of the books and the 1994 film, you might not like this one but if you're a fan of vampires and interested in the vampire lore, this could be a so-bad, its' good sort of watch if you're in the mood.
