I just came across the Reuters review for the musical "Lestat" and it is, pardon the pun, bloody hilarious :o)

Just how musical can a vampire get? Well, from this review - not very. My take is that if you have to do a vampire musical - go camp and aim for the funny bone. Otherwise, it should be left as it is. But that said, something seems to be missing from the musical. Everything looked great in the beginning; a promising cast, rich adaptation material and legendary songwriters. So how could it go wrong? Maybe it's missing some heart. I've seen Hedwig and the Angry Inch and although I am in no way a man with a botched operation, I could still identify with the characters - they came across as human - no matter outlandish and flamboyant they appear to be.

As literature, The Vampire Lestat book had enough material to satiate the hungry reader but once it's turned into a musical, it seems that it was just overwhelmed by the too many details in the original material and simply not enough time to cram everything in a 2-hour show. The book should've been left alone! Alone!

However, I don't agree with the comment in the article that read, "Bad reviews don't always spell doom, particularly for a show aimed at tourists rather than elitist New Yorkers". Regardless of whether it was targeted at jaded New Yorkers, wide-eyed tourists or even liberalists from the moon, audiences should be able to at least relate to a small part of the story.

So at the end of the day it looks like - back to the drawing board, guys! Try harder and well, if you can't make a decent musical, well, you could've passed it off as a modern contemporary piece of performance art or highbrow art. And everyone loves art, don't they ;o)