Syl Lord Andrew Lloyd Webber and Sir Tim Rice created "Jesus Christ Superstar" in 1970 and has been performed ever since whether in community, regional or school. It has been a popular musical revived many times. Gale Edwards, the female director, did a very good job in bringing the musical to the stage and life. The cast does a very good in their roles but none are memorable to me. Less than two hours long, the story of Jesus Christ's final days are well-known. Rik Mayall is memorable as King Herod. Renee Castle did a good job as Mary Magdalene.

Qanqor I have deeply loved Jesus Christ Superstar for as long as I can remember. For my perspective on the work, see my lengthy review of the original '73 movie. I watched this new version with low expectations, and a bit of trepidation, but felt the need, as a completist, to see it none the less.Well, it wasn't nearly as bad as I feared. In fact, overall, I'd have to say I enjoyed it. But honestly, not because of any of the "modernizing" worked for me. Mostly I found this production to be highly flawed. But the original music and book was still there, largely intact. Happily, they didn't modernize any of *that*-- no songs were turned into techno or hip-hop or anything like that. So it was still the gloriously wonderful Jesus Christ Superstar I was listening too, and so it was hard not to enjoy it, despite all the films flaws.Many of the flaws have been covered here thoroughly in other reviews, so I won't revisit the over-acting or some of the weaknesses in the vocals or the muddling of the characterization. Well, I do have to make *one* point about the vocals: what was up with Caiaphas??? The part is supposed to be for a glorious bass, and when this gentleman sang the very low notes, he sounded sublime. Yet every single time he moved into a higher register, his voice suddenly got all scratchy and awful. Every. Single. Time. My early enthusiasm for him was quickly dashed and replaced with a painful disappointment.But what I want to dwell on was the setting. The sets and the costumes and all. The whole "modernized" setting, complete with modern clothes, modern graffiti, modern technology in evidence. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think this was necessarily a bad idea per se. But it fit in awkwardly with the book. We're *looking* at a vague, modern, abstract urban totalitarian state-- but the singers are singing about very concrete historic things like Romans and Caesar and crucification. By the time people start talking about Jesus as alleged "King of the Jews", one's reaction is "Jews??? These people we've been watching were supposed to be Jews? Huh?" I think there was a solution to this problem, but the production people couldn't be bothered with thinking it through that far. My suggestion would have been to do an inverse of what they did in the '73 film. In that film, we are given the ancient Judean setting, but a few anachronistic signposts along the way to serve as modern references. Since this film was going with a modern setting, they needed to add more historic signposts along the way, to orient the story. Do *something* to make it at least look like our modern urban setting is still somehow Jerusalem, that the conquered and oppressed people are in fact Jews, that the conquerers are somehow the Roman Empire. I mean, have some Latin in the sets somewhere, have some star-of-David's in the costumes, have the graffiti explicitly put down Caesar, something. Jeez, at a minimum, how about having the bread at the last supper be matzo, like it ought to be! (it was a Passover seder, after all!). Do *something* so that what we're hearing matches what we're seeing!Finally, a couple criticisms of the music. While the music, overall, was the original wonderful score, with freshly recorded and well done instrumental tracks, I have a couple nits to pick. First, while they included almost all of the extra musical material that the '73 movie added above and beyond the original album, they left out one song, and naturally it's the one I really like: Then We Are Decided. A true pity. Also, many numbers were done at a slightly slower tempo than the original, and I mostly didn't find that to be an improvement. It merely sapped energy. But most damning was a painful proclivity to slow *way* down at the ending of *every* song, in overly dramatic, overly schmaltzy fashion. Doing this once in a while can be OK, but it started to show up in every song, becoming predictable and eventually dreaded and wince-inducing.But even with all that, I *still* found the thing enjoyable enough that I was glad I watched it. The '73 original is still vastly better, and the original album is still probably the overall best milieu for this work. But Jesus Christ Superstar proved to be indestructible, and still shone through all the mis-handlings.

jessica_overstreet Wow! As they say, there's two hours of my life that I will *never* get back! I had a copy of the soundtrack for many years and would listen to it over and over. Finally I got a wild hair and decided I would watch it. I rented both versions, 1973 and 2000. I fell in love with Ted Neely (Jesus) and Yvonne Elliman (Mary Magdalene) as well as Carl Anderson (Judas) in the 1973 production.I then moved on to the 2000 version with an open mind. I was going to give it a chance. It was ABSOLUTELY horrendous! I haven't bothered to find out the real names of the actors but the man who played Jesus seemed completely vacant through most of the film.I really wanted to like the woman who played Mary Magdalene, I just couldn't. She is a beautiful, earnest-looking, fresh-faced young lady. Who very obviously had no idea how to portray the emotional range of Mary Magdalene. She had a nice voice that also could not fully cover the range required to play Mary.The man who played Judas did an OK job. I may have even really liked his performance, but it's a shadow under Carl Anderson's portrayal.Honestly, after the first 30 minutes of trying to give the movie a chance, I could suffer through no more and had to turn it off.

me43 This version of Jesus Christ Superstar illustrates two truths about casting for the silver screen: First, stage actors don't necessarily translate well to film.Secondly, the same material in different hands can either make or break a production.Carter's Jesus has no charms whatsoever. He is whiny and petulant, angry and defiant, and chews up the (scant) scenery at a mile a minute.Carter looks like a robust Lt. Dan, sans beard, and has more than a hint of confusion about him. Ted Neeley's Jesus oozed compassion and understanding, for both Mary and Judas, but this version lacks compassion for anyone. Jesus, in fact, comes across as self pitying, and arrogant.Judas seems to be a frustrated homosexual in lust with the man himself, and the gestapo Jews are just bizarre.I could go on and on, but why waste any more precious moments on this very bad production of a beloved classic?