Poll: Vampire Chronicles... Which is better?

[Drakenian]

I recently sat down and watched two of my favorite movies again: 1994's Interview With the Vampire(directed by Neil Jordan), and 2002's Queen of the Damned (directed by Michael Rymer) and I was curious; which of these movies do people think are better?

When I say better, I am using it here as in a more enjoyable movie. Not counting in how well the movie relates to the books, but how it stands as a film.

Which one has better characters, better plot, better effects, lighting, cinematography? Share your opinions.

Personally, I enjoyed Interview With the Vampire better. I've always loved the fact that vampires are, essentially, immortal, and I loved how the theme of the movie was, basically, "eternal life becomes lonely." I thought Tom Cruise did a better job as Lestat then Stuart Townsend did, and I liked the "life story" plot of the movie.

EDIT: Please do not start a discussion about the books. I made the poll because I wanted to know people's opinion on the movies, not the books.

 

[Da_Schwartz]

Read the books. Vampire lestat was my fav of the original 3 novels. After queen though it gets a bit hard to read anne rices 3 paragraph description of a candles flame, or a windy street. Enough already. You will see like in pretyt much all cases. The movies got it waaaay wrong. Theres no way any of them actually read the books. Brad pitt and dunst as louie and claudia were the only ones out of both movies that i could watch and be like.. alright i can dig that.
And yes Cruise was by far the better lestat. But still not even close. Queen of the damned actaully is kinda both books lestat and damned, but well.. without going into a rant here just read them..If you loved the films >.> it's well worth your time.

 

[deadsparrow]

Read the books. Vampire lestat was my fav of the original 3 novels. After queen though it gets a bit hard to read anne rices 3 paragraph description of a candles flame, or a windy street. Enough already. You will see like in pretyt much all cases. The movies got it waaaay wrong. Theres no way any of them actually read the books. Brad pitt and dunst as louie and claudia were the only ones out of both movies that i could watch and be like.. alright i can dig that.

yeh totally the movies were off..not waaay off. but they were deff off and lacking alot of the finer points the books had.

the books were awesome. i didnt bother to read queen of the damned though..after watching the movie i was sorta put off..

the vampire lestat though was my favorite out of all the books

 

[Lukirre]

I haven't seen Queen of the Damned, so I'll just talk about why I think that Interview with a Vampire would be hard to top, from a film standpoint.

Characters:

Tom Cruise did an excellent job as Lestat. He received a lot of harsh criticism for his then-over-the-top protrayal of the vampire, but I think he correctly captured the pending insanity that is related to the loneliness of immortality.
Brad Pitt did a fair job as Louis, too. His almost monochromatic tone was perfect for the brooding vampire, not to mention his facial expressions worked well.
Kirsten Dunst was about as good as you can expect from a child actor. She did successfully portray a little brat, though.
Antonio Banderas: 'nuff sed.

Plot:

You can't really get much more out of the plot of IwaV. I felt it was never a movie that was based around what was going on. Much like Watchmen, I watched this movie as a character movie, and I appreciated the time and effort put into character development. It's something that is seldom seen in theatrical performances these days.

Effects:

I felt that the effects were over the top, but they worked well. It was somewhat like the blood effects in Sweeney Todd. You knew they were sitting back and just enjoying it for the humorous depiction it was, and it carried through well to the audience. Also, considering it's a movie made in 1994, it's even better. I honestly thought the effects in IwaV were better than some of the effects I've seen in movies of late.

I just thoroughly enjoyed this movie.

Mind you, I have not read any of the books, and as I mentioned before I haven't seen Queen of the Damned.

 

[Drakenian]

Read the books. Vampire lestat was my fav of the original 3 novels. After queen though it gets a bit hard to read anne rices 3 paragraph description of a candles flame, or a windy street. Enough already. You will see like in pretyt much all cases. The movies got it waaaay wrong. Theres no way any of them actually read the books. Brad pitt and dunst as louie and claudia were the only ones out of both movies that i could watch and be like.. alright i can dig that.

I'm sorry you prefer the books over the movies, but the point of the poll was which movie was better. Your post is irrelevant to the subject and you should be reported for meaningless posting.

... Not really, I'm just yanking your chain.

I know the books are better. They are some of my favorite books. But, again, the poll was centered on the movies, not the books.

 

[Da_Schwartz]

queen was a really good book. I think memnok or however you spell it was next. I got about halfway through and for no good reason whatso ever stopped reading. (besides the over descriptivness) ugh plz forgive terrible spelling in previous response and this one, eyes blurry ..going to sleep...

 

[Drakenian]

I haven't seen Queen of the Damned, so I'll just talk about why I think that Interview with a Vampire would be hard to top, from a film standpoint.

Characters:

Tom Cruise did an excellent job as Lestat. He received a lot of harsh criticism for his then-over-the-top protrayal of the vampire, but I think he correctly captured the pending insanity that is related to the loneliness of immortality.
Brad Pitt did a fair job as Louis, too. His almost monochromatic tone was perfect for the brooding vampire, not to mention his facial expressions worked well.
Kirsten Dunst was about as good as you can expect from a child actor. She did successfully portray a little brat, though.
Antonio Banderas: 'nuff sed.

Plot:

You can't really get much more out of the plot of IwaV. I felt it was never a movie that was based around what was going on. Much like Watchmen, I watched this movie as a character movie, and I appreciated the time and effort put into character development. It's something that is seldom seen in theatrical performances these days.

Effects:

I felt that the effects were over the top, but they worked well. It was somewhat like the blood effects in Sweeney Todd. You knew they were sitting back and just enjoying it for the humorous depiction it was, and it carried through well to the audience. Also, considering it's a movie made in 1994, it's even better. I honestly thought the effects in IwaV were better than some of the effects I've seen in movies of late.

I just thoroughly enjoyed this movie.

Mind you, I have not read any of the books, and as I mentioned before I haven't seen Queen of the Damned.

Thank you for your thoughts. Yes, the characters and plot were the main reason I believe Interview With the Vampire is better than Queen of the Damned.

But, Queen of the Damned is still a good movie. If you enjoy gothic undertones and music performed by David Draiman of Disturbed and Jonathan Davis of Korn. It doesn't place as much on character development as IWtV, but it does explain a lot of the back story to Lestat, which I did enjoy.

 

[Da_Schwartz]

Read the books. Vampire lestat was my fav of the original 3 novels. After queen though it gets a bit hard to read anne rices 3 paragraph description of a candles flame, or a windy street. Enough already. You will see like in pretyt much all cases. The movies got it waaaay wrong. Theres no way any of them actually read the books. Brad pitt and dunst as louie and claudia were the only ones out of both movies that i could watch and be like.. alright i can dig that.

I'm sorry you prefer the books over the movies, but the point of the poll was which movie was better. Your post is irrelevant to the subject and you should be reported for meaningless posting.

... Not really, I'm just yanking your chain.

I know the books are better. They are some of my favorite books. But, again, the poll was centered on the movies, not the books.

Well in that case.. lol. Interview was better. It was just produced better. Better actors also. It stayed true enough for an adaptation. In queen, i dunno if i would of choose alyiah for the lead, i mean..meh..u know what i mean. And townsedn just didn't do it for me. I just wasn't buying it. Where as in interview it all felt very real and as beliveable as a vampire movie could be. You would think me a fomre film major could give better answer then that but im exhausted.. going to bed nuff said.
ALTHOUGH lol.. i think one of the problems with queen was that in the movie it was actually TOO Gothic.It was a bit "hot topic-ish" for me. just the overall look of the film and the direction townsedn took lestat. He's a complex character that he jsut didn't have the stones to play. Yes lestat is artsy, a bit over the top, enjoys the finer things in life, hes also cunning, arrognat and sadistic..amongst other things. For me they took that character and just slapped him into a your typical, predictable, gothic portrayal of a vampire. Meh. I just didn't like it

 

[quiet_samurai]

For interview with the vampire the movie did a good job portraying the book. Although alot was left out the basic story and mood was still there. I also think all the actors did a spectacular job portraying their characters.

Queen of the Damned movie sucked big ass, and completely messed the whole universe up as far as pivitol plot points and said characters being the catalyst of that plot point. The only good thing about that movie was Aaliya because she was insanely gorgeous and i think she could have had a good acting career, maybe i'm just saying that because she's dead, I doubt it though. The book though is fantastic.

Movie - Interview with the Vampire is better
Book - Queen of the Damned is better.

 

[Drakenian]

For interview with the vampire the movie did a good job portraying the book. Although alot was left out the basic story and mood was still there. I also think all the actors did a spectacular job portraying their characters.

Queen of the Damned movie sucked big ass, and completely messed the whole universe up as far as pivitol plot points and said characters being the catalyst of that plot point. The only good thing about that movie was Aaliya because she was insanely gorgeous and i think she could have had a good acting career, maybe i'm just saying that because she's dead, I doubt it though. The book though is fantastic.

Movie - Interview with the Vampire is better
Book - Queen of the Damned is better.

Strange, because a lot of my friends enjoyed Queen better. Maybe because most of them are gothic vampire nuts and get off on Stuart Townsend. Oh well...

... They're all girls, by the way.

 

[quiet_samurai]

For interview with the vampire the movie did a good job portraying the book. Although alot was left out the basic story and mood was still there. I also think all the actors did a spectacular job portraying their characters.

Queen of the Damned movie sucked big ass, and completely messed the whole universe up as far as pivitol plot points and said characters being the catalyst of that plot point. The only good thing about that movie was Aaliya because she was insanely gorgeous and i think she could have had a good acting career, maybe i'm just saying that because she's dead, I doubt it though. The book though is fantastic.

Movie - Interview with the Vampire is better
Book - Queen of the Damned is better.

Strange, because a lot of my friends enjoyed Queen better. Maybe because most of them are gothic vampire nuts and get of on Stuart Townsend. Oh well...

... They're all girls, by the way.

I just didn't like it because I read the book first and loved it. Even though I always had a secret crush on Aaliya for years, that is not enough for me to like a movie.