Like everyoen else who have read the books, I too see the Queen of the Damned film’s version of Lestat is criminally out-of-character but I personally hold only the script writers’ and possibly the director and whoever really had any saying on it, responssible. Not the actor; not Stuart Townsend, at all - because he could not possibly have changed the character to more true version, in any case – because the script writers created the version – they wrote the scenes and the lines given to the character. Townsend could only do his best and bring the written text to life and add to it, improvising himself.

And even if Townsend had known who Lestat truly is, the script was already too radical – it was impossible to portray a totally true Lestat in that shitty story. Marius’s character was more like Magnus in personality and since Marius is an extremely important person to Lestat, Lestat of this film could not have been the Lestat from the books because neither was Marius.

Now – can you see the in-character personality features that are even in this mostly disgraceful film version of Lestat? AND that Townsend portrayed those features heartfelt and in natural tone – because the facial expressions, tones of voice and the whole being is naturally all Townsend’s acting – the way he brought them to life because NOT every single detail was in words in the script but Stuart had to decide himself how to have Lestat look like and so on.

Can you see how Lestat in the film (is):

- A BRAT and a REBEL:
He plays the violin with the gypsies even though Marius had just told him not to meddle with mortals. And he goes to the secret tunnel and chamber though he must have realized secret chambers are secret and thus not allowed to be entered. And he fights Marius in every possible way while chained to the bed for his own protection - I think in that scene Lestat at some point goes a little out of character, but do take note he isn’t ENTIRELY himself in these moments but high on Akasha’s blood. And thirdly, he breaks the number one vampire rule by becoming a rockstar.

- SENSITIVE and DEEPLY EFFECTED BY MARIUS:
He loves humanity; almost crying after having to kill the gyspsy girl. Even though he’s not exactly like that about killing, in the books - this was still a way to show he’s sensitive side – as is also the moment much later, when he speaks beautifully about humanity, to Jesse. And as for the Marius matter – he cries out desperately after Marius, when finding him and the statues and everything else gone. And the look on his face when he steps into the room where Marius is waiting, in the reunion scene – he looks as if he can’t believe he’s actually looking at Marius and when he’s convinced he really is, he looks as if Heaven just opened up in front of his eyes. And my personal favorite Lestat moment in the whole film: the look in his eyes indescribably deeply touched almost as if he was nearly in tears of happiness, when Marius had leapt on the stage to protect him - and he’s not even taking his eyes off Marius for a long moment.

- DEVILISH and CHEERFUL:
Just look at his expression when he asks Akasha’s satatue ”Shall I play for you?” and the mischievous expression on his face, when he glances after Marius the second before he starts to approach the gypsies on the beach to play the violin. How about the perfectly enthustiastic and happy cheer-jump and facial expression he does, when Marius has appeared on the stage and he finally takes his eyes off Marius to find his fans adoring the show. Not to mention the gorgeous, happy smile while he watches Marius kicking the vampire’s ass who had just tried to hurt him [Lestat.] While the film version is generally taken out of characterly depressed and not joyful enough, the fact all that changed around Marius is very, very in-character.

+++ Lestat in the book describes he can look very mean, when he smiles. Well, Townsend does, for one in the moment he plays the violin on the beach and we also see in that moment, his eyes glowing, which was the moment the girl’s father realized he’s not human. That evil smile and the eyes and Lestat clearly isn't trying to look like that, he' sjust enjoying the violin playing. And also I adore in the end the smile he gives David Talbot just before he walks out of the Talamasca door.

I probbaly forgot to mention some moments ad scenes but I’d think those ought to make you consider Townsend actually is potential to play a true version of Lestat. Because, as said, not all the details, expressions and such were described in the pages of the script but Townsend brought them to the screen. And even if every single little thing was described in text form (which it never eve ris in film scripts) Townsend would’ve still needed and had the talent to make it come alive. But as it is, he did it all out of himself.

Of course, as said – all this’s just th way I see the scenes and moments and my personal impression on how acting business works… and I have read two different earlier script versions of the film, including the very original. You may disagree but then please just tell me how did you see those moments and experssions and all that?

Because of all that and the fact he looked around 20 years old and had the exact right hair style (except in the modern days it was lifeless and floppy which isn’t Lestat but in the journal entry clips it was beautiful, natural looking, curly and not-quite shoulder-length hair), so in my opinion Stuart Townsend’s THE Lestat.

If you actually read this comment of mine through with thought, you ought to understand why I phraised this pick question the way I did, instead of giving you the possibility to label him absolutely unfitting to play true version of Lestat.

If you made a pick – please would you kindly leave a comment too! (:

I agree totally.
I find it such a shame that a character such as Lestat was given a movie of that poor quality. However, I did enjoy Townsend playing him much more than Tom Cruises earlier incarnation, not that he did a bad job, I just couldn't get passed Cruises facial expressions that were NOT Lestat's.

If they were ever to deliver a FAITHFUL version of 'The Vampire Lestat' I wouldn't mind if Townsend portrayed him again because he did a very good job, although this might do the movie harm since people would associate him way to much with the failed Queen Of The Damned.

It's hard to please hard core fans. And at first I too was disapointed wit the film, but you can't put everything into a film, and technically the film is actually two books, The Vampire Lestat and Queen of the Damned.
The relaionship between lestat/marius and Lestat/Jesse is annoying but the lestat/marius relationships is there to make the plot easier and less complicated, and the lestat/jesse relationship is there to give romantic edge to it, becuase the love between lestat and akasha is hard to grasp with other 1hr30mins odd to watch the film.
If you consider the film on it's own, excluding the fact that it's ment to be an adaptasion ofthe book,then it's not half bad.

And finally, yes Stuard Townsend is a fabulous actor and most definitly did catch the essence of Lestat's personallity, and the voice! It's exactly how I imagined it, teasing, and sesual with the french undertone, it was captavating. and above all, allthough he looks nothing like the actual Lestat, he is gorgeous which helps majorly !

Myf_1992,

Happy to hear you see the potential for the personality but...

How does he look "nothing like the actual Lestat"? For all I see the only difference is that Townsend didn't have blonde hair and gray/blue eyes.

In Tom Cruise Lestat again I see nothing else but the hair and eye colour in common. Not sure about the eye though. But Cryise's hair wasn't curly enough, it was too long too and he looked waaaaaay too old. And not angelic enough in my opinion anyway... While Townsend had those features perfectly there, leaving only the eye and hair colour wrong.

So how on earth could Townsend look "nothing like Lestat"? To be honest, I'm quite sick of people defying the perfect looks and sometimes even the entire character only by the hair and eye colour and if they are not correct it's "nothinglike Lestat". I mean, yeah, it had a significant point in the story but it didn't make Lestat the character and it wasn't ALL there was to his appearance either.

it wasnt just the hair colour and eyes, in my opinion, when i read the book i see a tall more muscular guy that Townsend, more filled out like Cruise. But i agree that Cruise is too old, and not pretty enough to be true to the books. Bu in my opinion i believe Townsend looks too young, and i know Lestat is ment to look young he just doesnt fit the bill for me.
He does however have that cheeky grin which is apsolutly gorgeous.

Ahh, I see. Finally someone who has valid even though still personal image based, reasons for that extremely judging opinion. :D

I think he couldn't have played it decently, but overall there are better choices to play him. I think Charlie Hunnam should play lestat in any future or remade films of the vampire chornicles

I was thinking, onwhat basis should you judge a character in a film, and I came up with the criterias, looks, speech; the way they say it, and what they say, and actions; what they do, and the way they do it. All of these do not have equal significance, but this can be a personal thing on how you spacifincally judge a character. for example, I do not cosider looks to be as important as action is.

Now of that list Stuart is not responsible for what he says, and partly the way he says it (due to directors orders and script ques), he is also not responsible for what he does(again director and script), so to judge weather he's a good Lestat I'm going by what's left which is; looks, a bit of the way he says things, and partly on his actions. The question specificly says not to judge Stuart on his looks (and I apologize for doing this earlier, I didn't read the question very closly, hense this comment), so I'm left with a part of his actions and part of the way he says things, which if you ask me, isn't a lot to go on. So, one of my points is, I don't think you can over come the bad script and judge Stuart fairy, there wasn't much leway for him to show he is a good Lestat, and there isn't much left for us to judge him on. He could be a flawless Lestat or a terrible Lestat, we really just can't tell.
But from the parts where Stuart does get some freedom, I would say he was an adiquate Lestat.

I'm not sure if I made any sense, or if it was an incoherant babble, but this is my more thoughtful opinion :D

i think his face does look like lestats but i can't get over him not having blonde hair and blue eyes its just an issue i have
charlie hunnam=perfecto lestat

Myf,

I think your comment is the most valid and helpful in order to consider thi s matter basically, of all these comments here, including mine. As I mostly weight on what you also pointed out, that he could not have affected how he enitrely portrays Lestat, but I also weight on what of Lestat practically is in the version and how he portrayed them... Which is not so entirely helpful in the consideration as your comment is. :P

In all honesty, I've only seen the film once back in May or June, and then I saw it in fragements as my laptop was beahaving badly. So I wouldn't go off what I say too closely. I will get round to seeing it again, but I can't get hold of the dvd in any shop, and up untill now my laptop has been tempremental.

I'm sorry, but in my opnion, he just wasn't Lestat. He didn't do it for me. It could have been because of how shitty the movie was all together, but Stuart as Lestat just didn't fit. Stuart, himself is a great actor, but for this part...NO!

I understand why many people feel that the script was what sucked, not Townsend. Because it was a crappy script in that it was such a far cry from the book. Talk about OOC movie development. That being said, there's only so much of the crappiness that can be blamed on the script before his acting choices get called into question. It seemed to me as if he was more inspired by the broody HollyVamp than Anne Rice's Lestat.

"That being said, there's only so much of the crappiness that can be blamed on the script before his acting choices get called into question."

The "only so much" is the essential much/parts. Without the script he'd have nothing to portray. The script is the base, what the character mostly is. His acting only brought it to life and added something into the mess. So the in-characteristics are noticable if you aren't blinded by all the OOC crap.

No, but in his defense, those were VERY bad writers. Can you really judge anyone by their acting in ONE movie? They're paid to play the part the way their told and unless they are ridiculously famous, there is nothing they can do about it. I haven't seen him in a movie again, so I'm hoping his career wasn't dragged down with the ship.