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.

TheLurkingFox Others have explained already why this was such a travesty. I'll just pile on that, to say that this remake is really a catastrophe.The actors can't act, or rather, overact all the time, and what they do completely contradicts what they say. Judas is supposed to be, according to the lyrics, a fundamentally good man who finds himself misunderstanding Jesus and tries to stop him before the latter compromises their lives. In this production, Judas is just this meanie-meanie-pooh with a leather jacket who whine all the time and is violent with women.Jesus is this ridiculous guy with only two facial expressions who faints every two seconds and seems to not know what he's doing for the greater part of the movie. I'm not even talking about the ridiculous set and costumes which makes the "film" look like a bad late 90s MTV music video - a mix between S Club 7 and The Matrix. It's already dated, unlike the 73 version which for all its bell-bottomry is timeless. You've seen the 73 version? Don't bother with this one - find some vids on youtube for a good laugh and that's it. Never seen any version yet? RUN!!!! RUN and get the 73 version - a real film, with a real story, real actors and real singers.

Xander Seavy (RiffRaffMcKinley) 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.

owlman-4 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!!!