It's been said that movies are never as good as the books they are
based on,
and for the most part I would agree.
Back in 1994 I was less than enthusiastic at the prospect of
seeing Anne
Rice's deliciously evil vampire Lestat grace the big screen in
"Interview
With A Vampire." Even though the script was written by Rice
herself, I felt
it would inevitably have to cut corners to accommodate moviegoers.
As a devout fan of The Vampire Chronicles and
unabashed
admirer of the more than 200 year-old bloodsucking devil
incarnate, Lestat,
I was convinced that the chances of capturing the essence of
Rice's book on
film were nil. Nevertheless, I went to see it for the simple pleasure
of
saying, "I told you so."
As it turns out, I was wrong. There, I said it.
"Interview" surprised me most pleasantly. Tom Cruise made a
formidable and appropriately evil Lestat, while managing to look
good
in a blond wig. Brad Pitt invented a new dimension of suffering and
simultaneously boosted sales for green-colored contact lenses.
But most impressive was that all of the book's important elements
were incorporated into the film.
The one significant error—the casting of Antonio Banderas
as the angelic-looking Armand—leads me to a brief tangent. For the
record, the best
actor for this part would have been Matthew Ferguson. Anyone who's
seen his luscious locks in "Eclipse" or "Love and Human
Remains" will
undoubtedly agree with me on this. But anyway...
In March of this year, various entertainment and movie sites broke
the
news of a sequel to "Interview." To say I was thrilled is an
understatement. "Interview" was entertaining and it ended
promisingly with Lestat climbing into the front seat of the reporter's
car, and with a beguilingly devilish grin saying, "I assume I need
no introduction." What I assumed is that the sequel would be the
next book in the series, my personal favorite, "The Vampire Lestat."
Again, I was wrong.
Instead Warner Brothers, in a shameless effort to
make a quick
buck before the rights to the material reverted back to Rice, decided to
skip ahead to book three, "The Queen Of The Damned."
Now look here, I have read all of the books at least five times—no
need to
question my mental stability at this point, I assure you I'm as
normal as
the next person—and I can tell you that "The
Vampire Lestat" is the heart of the Vampire Chronicles. To skip it is
to
miss out on getting up close and personal with the damnedest
creature of
them all, to borrow Rice's words, "the Brat-Prince of Darkness
himself,"
Lestat de Lioncourt. The book answers many questions, raises
many more, and, most importantly, it sets the stage for everything
that happens in "Queen of the Damned."
And apparently I'm not the only one who's figured this out.
Rice herself denies any attachment to the project
and the big names associated with "Interview" want no part of it either.
The script is on its umpteenth
re-write and the story line, according to the few facts at Coming Attractions, has been butchered beyond recognition in
an effort to
incorporate the barest essentials from the missing novel. Half the
cast and
crew are still unconfirmed while the other half reads like a true
horror
tale.
Confirmed are Stuart Townsend as Lestat and Aaliyah (yep,
Aaliyah) as
Akasha, Queen of the Damned. In negotiations for various parts
are Simon
Baker, Lena Olin and Marguerite Moreau, and rumor has it the
studio is
trying to get Julia Roberts to sign on in a supporting role as
Lestat's
mother, thereby establishing the project's credibility and
bankability.
But the saddest mistake WB has made with this doomed project is
underestimating the intelligence of the audience. We know not to
expect a
movie to be as good as the novel it's based on, but that doesn't
mean we'll
settle for a sad parody. This movie, to quote my eloquent editor,
will "blow
goat testicle." You heard it here first, and if you go to see it, only to
find out that I was right, let me be the first to say, "I told you so."
Eva told you so.
