Showbiz
Sir Elton John's new musical based on the life of the vampire Lestat has met with harsh criticism.
The lavish musical, which has cost more than £6 million to stage, was branded a "musical sleeping pill" by The New York Times. The Times remarked that it was a musical that "only the chief accountant of a blood bank could love."
Inspired by Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles the show had been meant to have opened 12 days earlier, but was delayed after trial runs in San Francisco in January met with scathing reviews.
Sir Elton admitted at the time that there was "a lot of work to do", including revamping the first act and writing some new songs.
"We certainly ran into problems in San Francisco," he told the New York Post,
"but I think we can sort them out."
However, even with the extra twelve days of production time the reception of the musical was still not favourable, with The New York Times concluding that the musical suffered from "mediocrity", and apart from introducing a prepubescent vampire was "never truly imaginative, never betraying a sense of irony.
"This portrait of blood suckers in existential crisis gives resounding credence to the legend that vampires are masters of hypnosis. Dare to look upon Lestat and keep your eyelids from growing heavier and heavier and heavier."
However, despite the critics' poor reviews, the show has still taken more than £2 million during its six-week run at the Curran Theatre.
The lavish musical, which has cost more than £6 million to stage, was branded a "musical sleeping pill" by The New York Times. The Times remarked that it was a musical that "only the chief accountant of a blood bank could love."
Inspired by Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles the show had been meant to have opened 12 days earlier, but was delayed after trial runs in San Francisco in January met with scathing reviews.
Sir Elton admitted at the time that there was "a lot of work to do", including revamping the first act and writing some new songs.
"We certainly ran into problems in San Francisco," he told the New York Post,
"but I think we can sort them out."
However, even with the extra twelve days of production time the reception of the musical was still not favourable, with The New York Times concluding that the musical suffered from "mediocrity", and apart from introducing a prepubescent vampire was "never truly imaginative, never betraying a sense of irony.
"This portrait of blood suckers in existential crisis gives resounding credence to the legend that vampires are masters of hypnosis. Dare to look upon Lestat and keep your eyelids from growing heavier and heavier and heavier."
However, despite the critics' poor reviews, the show has still taken more than £2 million during its six-week run at the Curran Theatre.
More: Showbiz
More Showbiz News
Ten Things About...
Ten Things About... Ridley ScottWe find out ten fast facts about the English producer and director.
Interviews
'Angels' Share' Ken Loach interviewKen Loach, Paul Laverty and Paul Brannigan on their whiskey-soaked comedy.
Fashion & Beauty
Duchess of Cambridge's memorable momentsFlick through a gallery of Kate Middleton's stand-out public appearances.
Celeb Birthdays
Marilyn Monroe: Life and career in picsFlick through our gallery on what would have been Marilyn's 86th birthday.
