GameBanshee Forums

The whole thing that defines Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles in my opinion is the apparent humanity that the vampires display. Lestat really isn't sure he is doing the right thing, neither is Louis. They come to accept what they are doing but resort to killing thieves and Brigands instead of innocents.

It is just another example of Hollywood clearly having no idea what it is doing, the Vampire story is all about the lust and the communion that they share together, it isn't about how brutal they are. The story is secondary to the character's development, what they go through in the books is to display who they are, not their powers, if they don't do that it is bound to be a poor adaptation

I agree. Here is an excerpt from the Vampire Lestat, one of the first conversations between Lestat and Marius, where Marius refers to Lestat as an innocent, rather than the beast Lestat believes he has become. Oh! and incidentally, Louis was so shamed by being a vampire, he initially fed off animals

"‘An innocent? You can’t be speaking of me.’

‘There is so much talk in this century of the nobility of the savage,’ he explained, ‘of the corrupting force of civilisation, of the way we must find our way back to the innocence that has been lost. Well it’s all nonsense really. Truly primitive people can be monstrous in their assumptions and expectations. They cannot conceive of innocence. Neither can children. But civilisation has at last created men who behave innocently. For the first time they look around themselves and say, “what the hell is all this?”’

‘True. But I’m not innocent,’ I said. ‘Godless yes. I come from godless people, and I’m glad of it. But I know what good and evil are in a practical sense, and I am Typhon, the slayer of his brother, not the killer of Typhon, as you must know.’

He nodded with a slight shift of his eyebrows. He did not have to smile anymore to look human. I was seeing an expression of emotion now even when there were no lines whatsoever in his face.

‘But you don’t seem to justify it either,’ he said. ‘That’s what I mean by innocence. You’re guilty of killing mortals because you have been made into something that feeds on blood and death, but you’re not guilty of lying, of creating great dark and evil systems of thought within yourself.’

‘True’

‘To be godless is probably the first step to innocence,’ he said ‘to lose the sense of sin and subordination, the false grief for things supposed to be lost.’

‘So by innocence you mean not an absence of experience but an absence of illusions.’

‘An absence of need for illusions,’ he said ‘A love of and respect for what is right before your eyes.’"

The relationship between Lestat and Marius was one of profound love and respect for each other. None of this came across in the film - their relationship, as you said, was secondary to the plot.

Originally posted by Yshania
Oh! and incidentally, Louis was so shamed by being a vampire, he initially fed off animals

Yes indeed

The relationship between Lestat and Marius was one of profound love and respect for each other. None of this came across in the film - their relationship, as you said, was secondary to the plot.

What was the longest piece of dialogue or monologue during the film? I would have a guess at under a minute of consistent conversation. It is sad really, they had such an interesting book to work from and it is sad not to see them do better with it

Originally posted by Mr Sleep


What was the longest piece of dialogue or monologue during the film? I would have a guess at under a minute of consistent conversation. It is sad really, they had such an interesting book to work from and it is sad not to see them do better with it

I guess it would be the chorus to one of the bands songs

It is a real shame, since Anne Rice is very skilled with dialogue and character development. Someone you hated in book one, you came to love in book 2. The conversations between Marius and Lestat were fantastic, and the portrayal of emotion between Lestat and Marius/Nick/Louis and to a point Armand and Gabrielle were equally absorbing.

The book, Queen of The Damned, is not written first person...they are accounts of various people of their meetings and experiences with Lestat and the others. So book one being an interview, book two being an autobiography, and book three being various biographical accounts. This should be just as interesting I have two others after this (Vampire Armand and Pandora) - and there is one I haven't got yet!

Originally posted by Yshania
I guess it would be the chorus to one of the bands songs

It is a real shame, since Anne Rice is very skilled with dialogue and character development.

How much input did Rice have? It should have been a talky rather than a CG fest.

The conversations between Marius and Lestat were fantastic, and the portrayal of emotion between Lestat and Marius/Nick/Louis and to a point Armand and Gabrielle were equally absorbing.

How convincing is the actor playing Armand, he is quite an important figure, he displays what can happen if Lestat follows a certain path, i view him as a conscience figure.

The book, Queen of The Damned, is not written first person...they are accounts of various people of their meetings and experiences with Lestat and the others. So book one being an interview, book two being an autobiography, and book three being various biographical accounts. This should be just as interesting I have two others after this (Vampire Armand and Pandora) - and there is one I haven't got yet!

How would you categorise the directing, did it focus on individuals or was it party based, or was the camera more static? Do you think that people attracted to the film will get the books?

Originally posted by Morlock
I'll have to suffer her, and probably many times over.
Since this December she's costaring with Leonardo DiCaprio in Martin Scorsese's 'Gangs Of New York', which I really want to see, plan on liking, which means I will see it a few times.
I actuly just started reading the book by Herbert Asbury.
It's very odd, since it was written in 1927, so beside the fact that it's a different style than more modern books, it also refers to gangsterism as if it ended during the World War. (It wasn't nomber 1 untill 2 came along) As I am an expert on gangsters and the 'mafia' it's funny, since a new crime syndicate was formed in 1931, which was much bigger and organized than anything in 19th century.
Also to him, 'Native Americans' are the ones who were there before the revolution, as opposed to American Indians, who are now called Native American.

Anyway, the movie looks really good, it's Scorsese's first movie since 1999, and it has a line of great actors, mostly British and Irish. It has Daniel Day-Lewis, Liam Neeson, Brenden Gleeson (who I really like), Jim Broadbent (won the oscar this year for 'Iris', was in 'Moulin Rouge'), David Hemmings (from 'Gladiator' and 'Spy Game') and, something that really surprised me, Henry Thomas, otherwise known as Elliot from ET!

Anyway the buzz is that 'Gangs of New York' and Spielberg's 'Catch me if you can' (both starring Dicaprio), in addition to LoTR2 are the leading contenders for the oscars, which makes the first time in a while that 2 really established directors will go head to head.

Tripple Dratz ! I used to love Scorsese pieces...but with Diaz on Scorsese piece i guess I'm on the same boat as you do. i can't wait to see 'Gangs Of New York' play on my local then

Originally posted by Mr Sleep


How much input did Rice have? It should have been a talky rather than a CG fest.

To be honest - I don't know. I remember she hated the casting of Interview until she saw the film, as far as QoTD - I couldn't say.

Originally posted by Mr Sleep

How convincing is the actor playing Armand, he is quite an important figure, he displays what can happen if Lestat follows a certain path, i view him as a conscience figure.

Interesting question. He didn't feature. Not as you would expect. He was portrayed, but not addressed. At the end scene, there were a few vampires, but the only ones identified were Lestat, Marius, and Maharet and of the others Louis and Armand were among them (according to a skip I did to the back of the book) but their only speaking part were to deny following Akasha. One of them, possibly Armand, spoke of Maharet having taken the Queens death until Marius said she but sleeps. However, Armand was a one line nobody really. Sad.

In all, the only convincing actor was Aaliyah as Akasha. She came across as the graceful and beautiful savage that she was.

Originally posted by Mr Sleep


How would you categorise the directing, did it focus on individuals or was it party based, or was the camera more static? Do you think that people attracted to the film will get the books?

It was party and atmosphere based, lots of loud music and moody shots of brooding vampires. Basically, big band with an egotistical vampiric frontman challenges vampires to reveal themselves, they do and so do the ancients, lots of malevolence and exploding goths, but no exploration of characters individually, and no history. Then an end scene of vampiric lovers speeding across (Westminster?) Bridge (looks like a blurred shot of Big Ben). *shrugs* no beginning, no middle and no real end. I do not think anyone having seen the film would fancy the books on the basis of the film alone.

Originally posted by Yshania
However, Armand was a one line nobody really. Sad.

I would have been interested to see him portrayed by someone elses vision, it sounds to me like there wasn't anyone involved in this movie who had a vision, rather they though they would use an already established name to sell a Blade rip off.

Originally posted by Yshania
It was party and atmosphere based, lots of loud music and moody shots of brooding vampires. Basically, big band with an egotistical vampiric frontman challenges vampires to reveal themselves, they do and so do the ancients, lots of malevolence and exploding goths, but no exploration of characters individually, and no history. Then an end scene of vampiric lovers speeding across (Westminster?) Bridge (looks like a blurred shot of Big Ben). *shrugs* no beginning, no middle and no real end. I do not think anyone having seen the film would fancy the books on the basis of the film alone.

Sounds like one big dissapointment, i can spend longer looking for the book now since i wont be going to watch the film.

I agree.

Originally posted by Mr Sleep


Sounds like one big dissapointment, i can spend longer looking for the book now since i wont be going to watch the film.

It was, at least for me. I believe that you have the same appreciation for the books - and are more critical than I with films. I am sure you will see it for yourself, but I would say don't pay for it That same money will buy you the book, and many more hours of entertainment, with added depth and intrigue. I would be interested to hear what others think of the film, since in this instance I found it difficult not to look for comparisons to the book. A sad waste

Originally posted by Yshania
It was, at least for me. I believe that you have the same appreciation for the books - and are more critical than I with films.

Surely not!

I am sure you will see it for yourself, but I would say don't pay for it That same money will buy you the book, and many more hours of entertainment, with added depth and intrigue. I would be interested to hear what others think of the film, since in this instance I found it difficult not to look for comparisons to the book. A sad waste

I know Georgi wasn't very impressed...a sad waste indeed.

Although it' not a movie- last night I saw thw 1999 oscars again, and I forgot how funny some of the stuff were.
It was the year of 'Saving Private Ryan' ans 'Shakspeare in Love', and was hosted by Whoopi Goldberg.

The parts I liked most:

Robin Williams: "but before we get to guns n' Moses, which is of course, the Charlton Heston story"
and
"In case of an emergency we must follow acadamy protocol- Steven Spielberg first, the rest of you are on your own"

Jim Carrey (Carry was expected to be nominated for 'The Truman Show, but wasn't) : "I am here to present te oscar for best editing. That's all I'm here to do. I can just sit back and enjoy the party." Starts crying-" it's okay, winning the oscar is not the most important thing in the world, it's a, honour just to be nomin... Oh God" continues crying.

Whoopi Goldberg as Queen Elizabeth: "We are tonight to award the many many people who played me."
"Some of you may know me as the virgin Queen. Although I can't imagine who."

Goldberg: "Judi Dench. Last year she played Queen Victoria. This year she played Queen Elizabeth. She is determind to play every single queen of England. Nexy year she doin' Boy George"

"This is the the oscar of the millenium, and I'm hosting it. That makes me the ultimate Twentieth century Fox!"

Anyway, It had a lot of funny parts.

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
I know Georgi wasn't very impressed...a sad waste indeed.

Que?

Sleepy, I haven't seen QotD - I might have said I was unlikely to bother with it because I thought Interview was such tripe...

Originally posted by Georgi


Que?

Sleepy, I haven't seen QotD - I might have said I was unlikely to bother with it because I thought Interview was such tripe...

You haven't? Oh well i was wrong...it happens

I just saw two movies:

Monster's Ball- I got it for two reasons- I love Billy Bob Thornton, and I wanted to see what Halle Berry did to deserve the oscar.

On the first point- I was not dissapointed in the least. Thornton gave another great performance. It's surprising to think that in one year he had three different movies in which he was a lead actor. He should have been nominated for the oscar- for either this or The Man who wasn't there.
He plays a character much more negetive than the other roles in which I've seen him in. The commercials made it look like he was the good guy, who was against his bad son. It's the other way around.
His greatest part is when he and his son fight it off in the jail- he is so convincing in his hate.

As for the second point- I have know idea why she one. She was good, but certainly not better than Nicole Kidman.

I didn't really like the plot- but see it for Billy Bob.

Almost Famous- As I said- I wanted to see another Cameron Crowe movie. It was great, I really liked it. Much better than Vanilla Sky and IMO better than Jerry Maguire.

Patrick Fuget was great as the innocent hero.

Kate Hudson was a bit over the top, but I guess that's the character.

Billy Crudup was really great as Russel.

Jason Lee brought a lot of his character from Chasing Amy and Mallrats- always a great thing. Much better here than in VS.

I really liked Philip Seymour Hoffman's character and his speach on being uncool. (Not that that would have any bearing on me )

A very fun, entertaining movie, with a great oscar winning script. Also one of the best soundtracks I've heard.
[8.5/10)

Originally posted by Morlock
Almost Famous- As I said- I wanted to see another Cameron Crowe movie. It was great, I really liked it. Much better than Vanilla Sky [/b]

OMG Morlock agrees with me about something!!!

BTW Philip Seymour Hoffman is a fantastic actor, he has been excellent in just about everything I've seen him in I think

Not even any of you Brits recognise the short movie I described above? Is there a way to find out the title of a movie from the plot, like you can search on lyrics in music databases to find out the title of a song?

Showtime

If you're looking for great acting by Robert De Niro, you will be disappointed here. But you get 90 mins of great laugh. Rene Russo looks appealing but not as appealing when she co-star with Brosnan. Eddie Mruphy plays his usual stuff - a fast mouth cop. The best part that I love :
De Niro got a humvee replacing his regular car, while Murphy got a sports car.
De Niro : "Yeah, this is my Bat Cave. there's a tunnel there leading into my mansion on Beverly Hills"
Shatner slapsitck guest appearance as TJ Hooker coaching the pair.
Shatner shows Murphy how a cop taste cocain, by licking the suff with his tongue. De Niro repies, "How do you know if it's not Cyanide?"

@CE: Do you know who directed it or whos acting in it? Otherwise I think it will be difficult...

edit: It would also help if you know the names of a few characters or some quotes from the movie.

@Dottie: No well known actors at all, it was obviously a low budget, "alternative" production. The imaginary girl was called Penny. I know some quotes. Do you know somewhere where one could search on quotes?

Originally posted by C Elegans
@Dottie: No well known actors at all, it was obviously a low budget, "alternative" production. The imaginary girl was called Penny. I know some quotes. Do you know somewhere where one could search on quotes?

You could try http://www.imdb.com that might prove fruitful