To me, this movie is perfection.

Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

The first must-see film of the year.

"Patchiness" is the key word that describes everything related to "Jesus Christ Superstar" ever since the source material has been written. The Gospels are patchy piece of literature with an incoherent, anecdotal story of a Messiah. Tim Rice's libretto is a patchy attempt to give an earthly, plausible explanation of events that transpired, by applying a socio-psychological angle. Worthy and useful as it is, it still leaves gaping holes in motivation of protagonists. Patchy is, also, Andrew Lloyd Webber's musical score, ranging from repetitive pieces oblivious to demands of libretto to brilliantly poignant airs and duets that lean on best works of Romantisicm.Of course, with such foundation, no iteration of actual staging of this rock opera can ever be anything else but - patchy. Such was the 1970's concept album, the 1973's Norman Jewison's film, my 1993's high-school enactment and, obviously, this version updated for "21st century". There will never be a "definitive" version and every one will have it's downfalls, spikes of brilliance and everything in between. Directors will struggle to give it a proper setting, focus and rhythm, actors will struggle to squeeze a plausible and emotional performance out of at times wanting melodies and lyrics.So how does this "21st century" attempt fare in the eyes of this fan? I found it to be intriguing and done well enough, considering my initial skepticism and inevitable comparison with Jewison's cinematic work. There are "goods", "bads" and "inbetweens". Inbetweens first: the setting. Giving it a modern look is okay. Nothing of novelty, but nothing wrong with it either. Zealots are freedom fighters armed with assault rifles, Romans are Nazis in leather outfits, Jewish high priesthood is a board of directors. Getting back to staging indoors is also passable since it's all about mimicking MTV videos (mainly shot in studios), but it would benefit from using real locations (just like Jewison's film did) - it's more engaging for the viewer. Minor revisions of libretto were also useful although not very necessary.The "goods" are, most of all, Fred Johanson as Pontius Pilate with his mesmerizing baritone and an imposing presence; and the direction. Gale Edwards and Nick Morris gave it all they could in trying to visually plug the holes left by the script(ure), much like Jewison, but they even did one better on some occasions throughout the film. Frederick B. Owens and Renée Castle are very good in their roles (Caiphas and Mary Magdalene, respectively), not as much in the way of standing out as in the way of not messing up their parts. Unfortunately that's not that could be said for the rest of the cast.Which brings me to the "bads", which is - the rest of the cast. Jérôme Pradon as Judas should have at least been given a wig. The receding hairline, coupled with the sinister facial expression, made him look unnecessarily unsympathetic. The actor himself didn't seem too sure where to go with his character so he went all over the place. So did his singing. But he did seem enthusiastic about the role and the role of Judas is most volatile of all so whatever he does is at least passable. Rik Mayall with his gargling voice should never have been a part of any musical production. As good an actor as he is, he can't sing, nor even fake singing, even if it's a vaudeville number, that is king Herod's part. Michael Shaeffer as Annas is only interesting for being fashioned after Pinhead from Hellraiser, minus the pins. The pitch of his voice is irritating and so are the sudden switching of octaves for no good reason. Interpretations, or taking liberties with melodies and phrasing, turned out to be stumbling blocks for most, ending up in mangling melodies and rhythm more often than not.Interesting to watch but still the biggest flop of all is Glenn Carter as Jesus Christ. A flop not for his lack of talents, but for inability to carry the biggest burden: the one of playing the title role. Here is the "why": whatever liberties other characters are allowed to have with their interpretations, Jesus' part has to be done pretty much straightforward in order for everything to work. He has to go through the motions of emanating authority, wisdom, solemness, doubts, fear and suffering in that order, much like he did in the Gospels. He is traveling predestined, unwavering path while people around him are set to fall apart, puzzled about what he is supposed to be and mean. Ted Neeley once set the bar for that kind of performance and every aspiring Jesus Christ must come damn close to it or fail. Glenn carter failed. His vocal technique falls apart in heights which are crucial to his melodies. He can reach them alright, but lacks the power while up there, or at least a pleasant pitch. His acting is insecure and lacking in energy, which some other reviewers confused with "subtle". He is not all bad, has some moments while expressing solemness and suffering, but all in all he's just not Jesus Christ Superstar. Most of the entertainment coming from his role is watching him struggle.In summary, a pretty decent and courageous iteration of a classic, despite the flaws I zealously counted. Now that I finally discovered it, I'll be sure to recheck it in the future.

Seriously? Why?! The actors couldn't sing OR act, the director took VERY liberal liberties with many things (Simon wasn't a militant, he just thought Jesus should take some action against their oppressors, and other things), and if a modern version of a classic WERE necessary (which it isn't) this is a horrible excuse for a modern equivalent of the original. Carl Anderson is doing somersaults in his grave.The singing was also very guttural. Even at Gethsemane when the singing is supposed to be smooth and calming it sounds like robots singing an announcement versus a group of men sitting down to dinner (like the original). Every syllable in the entire production is pronounced...and that's annoying.

As if the similar 1999 production of "Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat" wasn't nauseating enough, the Really Useless (I mean, Useful... ahem) Group adds insult to injury by ***mangling*** Webber and Rice's only solid collaboration, "Jesus Christ Superstar." Jesus isn't the one who gets crucified here. It's Ted Neeley. And Carl Anderson. And those of us who watched this hoping to see an interesting new take on it.It was certainly a new take, but one that spat on a phenomenal play *and* a phenomenal movie. (What's worse is that the video box says it's available to see for the first time ever... ouch.) What's bad about it? Let's even skip the dismal casting decisions (Judas is guiltier of being a hack than a traitor here) and focus on what the strangers in a great land make of this play. Jerome Pradon whines his songs, which are many, my poor moviegoer. Frederick B. Owens needs to clear his throat. Somebody *please* get Caiaphas a cough drop! "Then We Are Decided," a vital song, is missing, and Jesus (Glenn Carter) bears an eerie and uncalled-for resemblance to "Joseph"'s Donny Osmond.Two cast members are pretty good-- Renee Castle, who is almost a match for Yvonne Elliman, and Tony Vincent, who beats Larry Marshall as Simon by actually having the talent to back up his enthusiasm. Unfortunately, they, like the promising Rik Mayall (poor Rest Home Ricky!), are nothing in the presence of nightmares like Carter and Pradon.One more thing. By casting a talentless Pilate, they've ruined one of my favorite scenes from cinema history ("Trial Before Pilate" in the 1973 movie). This overdone and infuriating redo gets 3 out of 10, and the only reason it gets those extra 2 stars is for two reasons: the squandered potential of both the show and Castle, Vincent, and even Mayall. Avoid like leprosy.

I am totally blown away by the high ratings and laudatory comments reflected by others for this production. It's like, what movie did you watch? I felt this production was one of the most miscast movies/videos that I've ever seen. The only cast member that evoked even the slightest pathos in me was Mary Magdalene; having said that, her singing talent fell shy.The Jesus and Judas characters left me totally cold and confused. They really didn't seem to have a clue what their roles were meant to convey. Jesus was lacking in any quality that would ever make me think of him as a "messiah" or even a complex human being. I felt zero warmth emanating from him.The Judas character, while certainly reflecting significant zeal, left me bewildered as to his real motivation, his commitment, his humanity.Sometimes updating the original setting to the modern era works, but this production totally failed to carry or convince me of anything. An interesting thought that my wife pointed out was that the scenes near the beginning where Jesus touches his apostles and vice versa left her feeling like there were almost sensual gay sentiments being conveyed, rather than the natural warmth and compassion that were communicated in other "time of Christ" presentations.I love musical theater and have seen quite a few productions of JCS, including the original Broadway and movie presentations. This production did have a few good moments that I did enjoy, but this was clearly the worst presentation I've ever viewed, including our amateur local productions. Very disappointing!!!