This will be a little long but hopefully will help people make an educated choice as to whether this film will be one they will enjoy. The first thing to understand is that the movie combined both books two and three of Anne Rice's vampire chronicles "The Vampire Lestat" and "Queen of the Damned". This means that the moviemakers did not attempt to capture every little nuance of the novels. Realistically, they rarely do. Anne Rice's "Queen of the Damned" while a fascinating read would not in itself necessarily appeal to people who are not Anne Rice fans. It painstakingly creates a whole heritage for vampires but realistically on film it would have fallen short. The book "The Vampire Lestat" is a wonderful book about Lestat and his bold move to become a rock star and shake up the world of the vampires. What the filmmakers have done here is plucked out the intent of the stories, the part that would appeal to the mass audience. It shows Lestat as the irrepressible vampire that he is, doing as he pleases without concern for the consequences.

In order to tie the story together the filmmakers used a little artistic license. To shorten the very LONG story about how Lestat became a vampire and to tie he and the character Marius together quickly, they decided to make Marius the one who turns Lestat into a vampire. In the grand scheme of things this is minor. The story as told in the book described an ancient albeit insane vampire that changed Lestat because he found him beautiful then kills himself. Tying Marius and Lestat together makes sense for the movie. It established the relationship quickly and certainly didn't hurt anything. The intent of the story remains intact.

Another point many people seem to have missed is Lestat as portrayed in Anne Rice's books is NOT "homosexual" in the classic sense of the word. He can't HAVE sex in her books, except for a brief jaunt as a human in "Tale of the Body Thief". He does not think in terms of gender in her novels. It is a person's very being, who they are, that attracts him since he is always in search of kindred spirits to share eternity with.

Lastly, the filmmakers have taken some artistic license with the other characters. They eliminated the character Maharet's mad sister. They do not actually tell you in the movie the names of the vampires that band against Akasha, Queen of the Damned, other than Maharet and Marius. The decision to de-emphasize the ancient vampires was a good idea because their own stories are irrelevant to this movie. It doesn't affect the outcome of the story. They destroy Akasha less brutally than in the book but again, the outcome is basically the same.

Then there is the character of Jesse, Maharet's human descendant. Jesse becomes Lestat's love interest in the movie whereas in the book she ended up with a broken neck at the rock concert and Maharet is the one who turns her into a vampire. This piece of artistic license is an interesting twist and works quite well. Lestat in Anne Rice's novels does have a tendency to become enamoured of an individual for a variety of reasons and the way they weave Jesse into this slightly different role for the movie is not out of keeping with the characters.

One last thing people may find criticism in is the filmmakers did not attempt to make Stuart Townsend a blonde for his role as Lestat. It doesn't matter. Townsend BECOMES Lestat for this film and it beats the heck out of the horrible dye job they did on Tom Cruise. Townsend has the delicate, aristocratic features Lestat is supposed to have and emanates the raw physical attractiveness that the "Brat Prince" Lestat is supposed to possess. I would personally love to see him play Lestat opposite Brad Pitt as Louis. He is the first actor in a long time I've seen that could hold his own next to Pitt.

Having established what somebody who has read Anne Rice's books may notice or even find to be a shortcoming, let me address the film itself. The story is about the vampire Lestat who decides to become a rock star to stir up the world of the vampires. In the process he awakens Akasha, the "Mother" of all vampires who has been in a trance-like state for centuries. Akasha comes for Lestat, saving him from the angry vampires and it quickly becomes apparent she is completely insane. It is then up to the ancient vampires that know of her existence to destroy her.

The actors are wonderful. Aaliyah plays the queen to perfection, evil and immoral. Stuart Townsend IS Lestat in this movie, bold, beautiful and constantly at odds with everything. The movie does the seemingly impossible. It weaves two of Anne Rice's wonderful books together into one visually spectacular piece. The songs written specifically for the soundtrack are exactly what one would imagine Lestat would write, raging against everything while giving away the vampire's deepest secrets.

Overall, if you like vampire movies you're going to love this one. If you're an Anne Rice fan with an open mind for some artistic license you should love the film as well. It doesn't follow her books EXACTLY like "Interview With the Vampire" did but the end result is wonderful. While Tom Cruise did a surprisingly good job as Lestat in "Interview" Stuart Townsend BECAME Lestat for "Queen of the Damned". As a writer myself I understand that rarely if ever does an author have any input on a film once the screenplay is sold. If I were Anne Rice, I would be very happy with the way they treated my characters and brought them to life.

This will be a little long but hopefully will help people make an educated choice as to whether this film will be one they will enjoy. The first thing to understand is that the movie combined both books two and three of Anne Rice's vampire chronicles "The Vampire Lestat" and "Queen of the Damned". This means that the moviemakers did not attempt to capture every little nuance of the novels. Realistically, they rarely do. Anne Rice's "Queen of the Damned" while a fascinating read would not in itself necessarily appeal to people who are not Anne Rice fans. It painstakingly creates a whole heritage for vampires but realistically on film it would have fallen short. The book "The Vampire Lestat" is a wonderful book about Lestat and his bold move to become a rock star and shake up the world of the vampires. What the filmmakers have done here is plucked out the intent of the stories, the part that would appeal to the mass audience. It shows Lestat as the irrepressible vampire that he is, doing as he pleases without concern for the consequences.

In order to tie the story together the filmmakers used a little artistic license. To shorten the very LONG story about how Lestat became a vampire and to tie he and the character Marius together quickly, they decided to make Marius the one who turns Lestat into a vampire. In the grand scheme of things this is minor. The story as told in the book described an ancient albeit insane vampire that changed Lestat because he found him beautiful then kills himself. Tying Marius and Lestat together makes sense for the movie. It established the relationship quickly and certainly didn't hurt anything. The intent of the story remains intact.

Another point many people seem to have missed is Lestat as portrayed in Anne Rice's books is NOT "homosexual" in the classic sense of the word. He can't HAVE sex in her books, except for a brief jaunt as a human in "Tale of the Body Thief". He does not think in terms of gender in her novels. It is a person's very being, who they are, that attracts him since he is always in search of kindred spirits to share eternity with.

Lastly, the filmmakers have taken some artistic license with the other characters. They eliminated the character Maharet's mad sister. They do not actually tell you in the movie the names of the vampires that band against Akasha, Queen of the Damned, other than Maharet and Marius. The decision to de-emphasize the ancient vampires was a good idea because their own stories are irrelevant to this movie. It doesn't affect the outcome of the story. They destroy Akasha less brutally than in the book but again, the outcome is basically the same.

Then there is the character of Jesse, Maharet's human descendant. Jesse becomes Lestat's love interest in the movie whereas in the book she ended up with a broken neck at the rock concert and Maharet is the one who turns her into a vampire. This piece of artistic license is an interesting twist and works quite well. Lestat in Anne Rice's novels does have a tendency to become enamoured of an individual for a variety of reasons and the way they weave Jesse into this slightly different role for the movie is not out of keeping with the characters.

One last thing people may find criticism in is the filmmakers did not attempt to make Stuart Townsend a blonde for his role as Lestat. It doesn't matter. Townsend BECOMES Lestat for this film and it beats the heck out of the horrible dye job they did on Tom Cruise. Townsend has the delicate, aristocratic features Lestat is supposed to have and emanates the raw physical attractiveness that the "Brat Prince" Lestat is supposed to possess. I would personally love to see him play Lestat opposite Brad Pitt as Louis. He is the first actor in a long time I've seen that could hold his own next to Pitt.

Having established what somebody who has read Anne Rice's books may notice or even find to be a shortcoming, let me address the film itself. The story is about the vampire Lestat who decides to become a rock star to stir up the world of the vampires. In the process he awakens Akasha, the "Mother" of all vampires who has been in a trance-like state for centuries. Akasha comes for Lestat, saving him from the angry vampires and it quickly becomes apparent she is completely insane. It is then up to the ancient vampires that know of her existence to destroy her.

The actors are wonderful. Aaliyah plays the queen to perfection, evil and immoral. Stuart Townsend IS Lestat in this movie, bold, beautiful and constantly at odds with everything. The movie does the seemingly impossible. It weaves two of Anne Rice's wonderful books together into one visually spectacular piece. The songs written specifically for the soundtrack are exactly what one would imagine Lestat would write, raging against everything while giving away the vampire's deepest secrets.

Overall, if you like vampire movies you're going to love this one. If you're an Anne Rice fan with an open mind for some artistic license you should love the film as well. It doesn't follow her books EXACTLY like "Interview With the Vampire" did but the end result is wonderful. While Tom Cruise did a surprisingly good job as Lestat in "Interview" Stuart Townsend BECAME Lestat for "Queen of the Damned". As a writer myself I understand that rarely if ever does an author have any input on a film once the screenplay is sold. If I were Anne Rice, I would be very happy with the way they treated my characters and brought them to life.

This will be a little long but hopefully will help people make an educated choice as to whether this film will be one they will enjoy. The first thing to understand is that the movie combined both books two and three of Anne Rice's vampire chronicles "The Vampire Lestat" and "Queen of the Damned". This means that the moviemakers did not attempt to capture every little nuance of the novels. Realistically, they rarely do. Anne Rice's "Queen of the Damned" while a fascinating read would not in itself necessarily appeal to people who are not Anne Rice fans. It painstakingly creates a whole heritage for vampires but realistically on film it would have fallen short. The book "The Vampire Lestat" is a wonderful book about Lestat and his bold move to become a rock star and shake up the world of the vampires. What the filmmakers have done here is plucked out the intent of the stories, the part that would appeal to the mass audience. It shows Lestat as the irrepressible vampire that he is, doing as he pleases without concern for the consequences.

In order to tie the story together the filmmakers used a little artistic license. To shorten the very LONG story about how Lestat became a vampire and to tie he and the character Marius together quickly, they decided to make Marius the one who turns Lestat into a vampire. In the grand scheme of things this is minor. The story as told in the book described an ancient albeit insane vampire that changed Lestat because he found him beautiful then kills himself. Tying Marius and Lestat together makes sense for the movie. It established the relationship quickly and certainly didn't hurt anything. The intent of the story remains intact.

Another point many people seem to have missed is Lestat as portrayed in Anne Rice's books is NOT "homosexual" in the classic sense of the word. He can't HAVE sex in her books, except for a brief jaunt as a human in "Tale of the Body Thief". He does not think in terms of gender in her novels. It is a person's very being, who they are, that attracts him since he is always in search of kindred spirits to share eternity with.

Lastly, the filmmakers have taken some artistic license with the other characters. They eliminated the character Maharet's mad sister. They do not actually tell you in the movie the names of the vampires that band against Akasha, Queen of the Damned, other than Maharet and Marius. The decision to de-emphasize the ancient vampires was a good idea because their own stories are irrelevant to this movie. It doesn't affect the outcome of the story. They destroy Akasha less brutally than in the book but again, the outcome is basically the same.

Then there is the character of Jesse, Maharet's human descendant. Jesse becomes Lestat's love interest in the movie whereas in the book she ended up with a broken neck at the rock concert and Maharet is the one who turns her into a vampire. This piece of artistic license is an interesting twist and works quite well. Lestat in Anne Rice's novels does have a tendency to become enamoured of an individual for a variety of reasons and the way they weave Jesse into this slightly different role for the movie is not out of keeping with the characters.

One last thing people may find criticism in is the filmmakers did not attempt to make Stuart Townsend a blonde for his role as Lestat. It doesn't matter. Townsend BECOMES Lestat for this film and it beats the heck out of the horrible dye job they did on Tom Cruise. Townsend has the delicate, aristocratic features Lestat is supposed to have and emanates the raw physical attractiveness that the "Brat Prince" Lestat is supposed to possess. I would personally love to see him play Lestat opposite Brad Pitt as Louis. He is the first actor in a long time I've seen that could hold his own next to Pitt.

Having established what somebody who has read Anne Rice's books may notice or even find to be a shortcoming, let me address the film itself. The story is about the vampire Lestat who decides to become a rock star to stir up the world of the vampires. In the process he awakens Akasha, the "Mother" of all vampires who has been in a trance-like state for centuries. Akasha comes for Lestat, saving him from the angry vampires and it quickly becomes apparent she is completely insane. It is then up to the ancient vampires that know of her existence to destroy her.

The actors are wonderful. Aaliyah plays the queen to perfection, evil and immoral. Stuart Townsend IS Lestat in this movie, bold, beautiful and constantly at odds with everything. The movie does the seemingly impossible. It weaves two of Anne Rice's wonderful books together into one visually spectacular piece. The songs written specifically for the soundtrack are exactly what one would imagine Lestat would write, raging against everything while giving away the vampire's deepest secrets.

Overall, if you like vampire movies you're going to love this one. If you're an Anne Rice fan with an open mind for some artistic license you should love the film as well. It doesn't follow her books EXACTLY like "Interview With the Vampire" did but the end result is wonderful. While Tom Cruise did a surprisingly good job as Lestat in "Interview" Stuart Townsend BECAME Lestat for "Queen of the Damned". As a writer myself I understand that rarely if ever does an author have any input on a film once the screenplay is sold. If I were Anne Rice, I would be very happy with the way they treated my characters and brought them to life.

Stephen King's novel Salem's Lot was interesting although not incredibly unusual vampire fare but it did have a great deal of development as to the motivation of each character in the book. When you strip all those layers away . . . what you have left is this movie. It's a classic tale of a vampire who comes into town creating upheaval and naturally it's a child who is the first to understand what's going on but nobody believes HIM. If you're a fan of Stephen King and expecting something of the caliber of "The Shining" you're going to be disappointed with this one. If you're a fan of vampire or horror films, this movie might be for you if you like the real tried and true formula film with things that go bump in the night. Don't go into this film expecting big things because they just aren't there. This is just a good old fashioned horror film based on the work of a remarkable author and if that's what you're looking for this one will be fine. Enjoy a good old-fashioned scare fest.

It's surprising somebody didn't attempt this a lot sooner. This film was an updated remake of the 1922 silent film "Nosferatu". The end result is effective and much more enjoyable for the average modern viewer. Like the original silent film, the vampire is portrayed as a hideous and sad creature. As in all "Dracula" based films, the humans must outwit the vampire in order to save the people they love. The film is very well done and would appeal to fans of the more "classic" horror movie style. With all the high budget slick presentation vampire movies available now this one may fall short for some viewers and may seem a little dated. I would nonetheless recommend it to anybody that would like to see "Nosferatu" but can't quite bear the idea of sitting through a silent film.

This film is interesting but well within the limits of the 1922 cinema from which it sprang. Hardcore fans of the genre all know the story about how the filmmaker "borrowed" Brahm Stoker's story of Dracula, embellished it in some ways and released this film without the proper permissions. The Count is portrayed as a grotesque creature in this version, bringing with him infestations of rats. There is a twist at the end where this creature shows humanity and self sacrifice which is quite a departure from Stoker's original novel where the Count is hunted down and destroyed in order to save the heroine from becoming a vampire. All this makes the film interesting but it is a silent movie and therefore may not appeal to most people who just want to pop a movie in the machine on Friday night. It's nonetheless very much a film for fans that are interested in the evolution of the vampire in cinema. The film has been called quite extraordinary for its time. I would still only recommend it to the curious or silent movie fans.

This version of "Dracula" is a movie buff's film. For its time it was groundbreaking. Nowadays, it comes across as a little overacted and since it's in black and white a little less than interesting visually. (Or if you're a fan of black and white films I suppose it could be MORE interesting visually, it's all a matter of perspective.) It can still be viewed as the "where it all began" as far as how all major films about Dracula would be approached for many years to come. The 1922 silent film "Nosferatu" presented the Dracula-like character a great deal differently and did not take hold the way this 1931 interpretation starring Bela Lugosi did. This movie paved the way for the success that the Dracula genre still enjoys to this day. I'd recommend it to anybody who is interested in seeing the "roots" of the vampire in the film industry.

"The Horror of Dracula" is one of the most faithful adaptations of Brahm Stoker's original novel. Starring Christopher Lee as Dracula, this film tapped the incredible sensuality of the vampire. The effects are naturally not nearly as good as more modern films but if you want to see a film that really follows both the story and intent of the original novel this is the version of "Dracula" to choose. It was a natural predecessor to the 1979 version of he film that starred Frank Langella, which took the mystery and sensuality of Dracula even further. This film was a bold early step in the direction of the course that vampire films would naturally follow and is still one of the best. It's a must have for any true fan of vampire films.

The idea behind "Shadow of the Vampire" was pretty good. There are mysterious problems on the set while the filming of the classic story "Nosferatu" and eventually we learn the problem is our lead man really is a vampire. The final conclusion of the movie is outright ridiculous. It was almost like they decided they better wrap up the movie . . . well, this will do. The movie is somewhat strange and very slow paced. It's interesting for maybe one viewing but I can't imagine sitting through it twice.

The fourth installment of the Subspecies series is a wrap up of the series, or at least this particular story line in the series. We once again see the vampire Radu trying to control his "fledgling" Michelle and Michelle trying to find her way to freedom from her "master". The series still views like a comic-book come to life but like a comic-book you keep buying the next in the series. In this episode new vampires are introduced . . . who live a life that bears a striking resemblance to Anne Rice's "Theater of the Vampires" that was depicted in her first novel Interview With the Vampire. In the finale of "Bloodstorm" we learn what both Michelle and Radu's fate will be. I'd recommend this or any of the Subspecies films for diehard fans only.