Despite loving the 1973 version, I always had an interest in seeing another film adaptation of the play. When I heard that this was being made, I was actually very interested because it seemed like a really good idea.Gale Edwards took on the role of director with the intention of making something that was more loyal to the stage show, which I commend because it's always nice to remain loyal to the source material.The story, in a nutshell, is about Jesus' last few weeks before his crucifixion from Judas' point-of-view. The entire story is told in song rather than spoken dialogue.Problems with this film are very clear right from the start. First is with the vocal recordings of the two leads, Glenn Carter (Jesus) and Jerome Pradon (Judas). Both are actually really good singers in other productions but neither seem to really fit into their roles. Pradon's vocal range never really truly accommodates the tenor requirement for Judas and Carter's voice lacks the emotion for the role of Jesus, and comes a little too close to Sebastian Bach's horrible rendition of the character on stage three years after this film released. To Carter's credit, he finally got into the role when it was redone on stage but it just wasn't there for the movie.Fortunately for Pradon though, his acting really makes up for his vocal shortcomings. Pradon is an amazing stage actor and it shows here.Most of the others in the cast seem to be very miscast. Fred Johanson as Pilate is more fitting for Caiaphas than Pilate as his voice is not the high range that Pilate is usually sung at and with the music playing to a more tenor range, his deeper bass voice doesn't blend well with Pilate's music at all. The same is actually for Cavin Cornwall as Peter, his voice is way too deep for the role. There are two actors that do blend into their roles well, Renee Castle and Frederick Owens. Castle is actually a really good Mary Magdalene. While not quite has versatile in her range as Yvonne Elliman was in the original, she does manage to make the role her own in this version of the production. Owens is a good Caiaphas and is actually one of my favorites to take on the role. He has a great bass voice and has an intimidating look to him.Unfortunately, while the last two are good casting calls and they do their songs justice, the film fails to hold up in other areas. Sometimes, great talents are completely wasted like Tony Vincent as Simon. Vincent is one of the best singers and dancers currently working in theater and yet he seems very restrained and not as active as he usually is but this might also have to do with the limited size of the set, because while the set is meant to represent a stage, it is much smaller than most of the actors are use to working with because while the stage the movie is on is big in height, there's not as much floor room due to the stairs.Also not helping the film is some of the costume choices. Jesus, his followers, Mary and Judas are fine but it's mainly the villains and Pilate that are a bit strange. Pilate looks like a blend between a character from Gladiator and Bison from the Street Fighter film, than there's all the leather of Caiaphas and his team and the leather on some of the other characters. You can't help but almost forget your watching Jesus Christ Superstar and not some soft-erotic film. It doesn't help that Pilates first song has him shirtless in bed. Nothing wrong with the idea, considering the subject of the song but the way he acts it out doesn't help the idea.So overall, while it tries it's best, the 2000 version of Jesus Christ Superstar fails to live up to standards, the vocals of some of the actors is restrained and some flat out don't fit in the roles. While there are a few good moments, the bad does outweigh the good in this film, which is unfortunate because it was obvious that the intentions were good.

First of all, I really want to say that I'm not in the "let's hate on Jerome Pradon" gang. Pradon has taken some fire for his portrayal of Judas but I really think the vitriol is undeserved in many cases. Pradon's voice and approach are different to the classic Carl Anderson portrayal l but their supposed to be. Give him a chance. In my opinion, Pradon gives a Judas who is conflicted, torn, twisted, pained, and pent up. You really need to watch his performance, and watch it carefully, to get the full effect of his characterization. He doesn't belt it out like Carl Anderson, but the fact that this is musical theatre at least as much as rock doesn't bother me, though it obviously niggles some. Nonetheless on their own, his vocals wouldn't be earth- shattering, although I quite enjoy hearing the hints of French in his enunciation and the soft yet still rock-tinged and sometimes edgy European sound about them, but when you watch him, Pradon is a born actor. He acts every sung line and his physical/visual performance is wonderful.There's comedy but there's also drama and angst in his performance. He makes Judas human and multi-dimensional. He does tend to wail when singing but nonetheless, The Last Supper is amazing at times in terms of emotional delivery as is the moment of betrayal. The connection between Judas and Jesus in that moment could not have been more effective. Judas ' Death is painful--but it's meant to be. The staging when Judas is alone singing I Don't Know How to Love Him is beautiful-- filled with primal emotion. Judas is splayed on the floor, looking almost like he himself is being crucified at one point. And the staging of Superstar, the title number, is really interesting in this production. It's just a completely different approach to the song and the vocals. That sequence, along with Pradon's version of Damned for All Time/Blood money are phenomenal and it's largely down to Jerome Pradon, who makes the character his own in a totally unique way. Let him not be Carl. He's Jerome. Let this be Jerome's Judas; don't demand that it be Carl's or Murray Head's.Otherwise, this production of Superstar is eye-catching, visually engrossing, and representative of a complete vision in its staging. Its setting leaps to life with a postmodern production design including broad strokes of distopic imagery. The back wall is covered in graffiti. Starting with a great close-up of a graphitized "HATE", much of the Overture is spent in close-up shots and pans across the wall, allowing us to really take in the designs. I find this device fascinating. It gives us a powerful sense of this story's setting; the life and times of the characters. The setting in this production carries an environment of heightened reality.Glenn Carter has a strong voice and is generally solid as Jesus. Other highlights include Fred Johanson's Pilate and Michael Schaeffer's Annas. The former is a striking new characterization, painting Pilate as a weak man in the guise of a strong one, a man who seems to view his role to be as much that of a showman as a governor and who lives in terror of losing the people's support. Annas is remarkable just for being a perfectly detestable villain.Drawing parallels with sociopolitical dynamics of today, disciples are portrayed as l revolutionaries rebelling against the Roman Empire. In this production, the segment beginning with Hosanna and moving directly into Simon's song perfectly exemplifies why Judas fears the "Jesus movement" is beyond anyone's control and is dangerous.There's an interesting moment immediately after I Don't Know how to Love him. Pradon's Judas catches Mary about to kiss Jesus, who is asleep. It does show the nastier smug side of this Judas that some people really don't like, but what's interesting to me is that the moment is played entirely with visuals, set to that fantastic piece of Lloyd Webber scoring that leads into Damned for All Time.Judas, Mary, and Jesus (who awakes on Judas' arrival) express their feelings only through their facial expressions. You can see the wheels turning in characters' heads from moment to moment. The intense lighting on Judas as we see a change come over him is the perfect finishing touch.This sequence captures what I like most about this production of Superstar, along with its emotional depth and three-dimensional character treatments: through visual abstraction, it paints an intense hyper-reality that represents characters' feelings and actions more than it directly shows them at times. Through its visuals, it is at times akin to visual poetry or a cousin to ballet. In Judas' Death the noose is lowered onto to the stage by unseen hands, presenting itself to him. During Blood Money, Judas crawls from the priests in a futile attempt to escape fate and Jesus later does the same, crawling desperately from the crowd baying for his blood as Pilate gives the death sentence.This Superstar is visually stunning at times in a way completely different to the equally powerful cinematic rendition. It uses a unique medium of visual storytelling to convey drama in a uniquely compelling way. Watch the final moments, as Jesus' body is placed on the stage. Gradually, the characters depart until only Judas and Mary, the two other key players, are looking on. And Judas fittingly does witness and feel the Crucifixion in this version even though he is dead. Judas and Mary, who have been stretched with tension throughout the story, stand together over Christ's body. This is a portrait of the characters and emotional journey of the play. It is poetry composed by moving people on a live canvas. It is visual and kinesthetic poetry. In short, it is theatre.

Maybe it's because this was the first version I've seen (I've only watched specific songs from the 1973 version to compare) but I love it! I'm Jewish, so I'm not that invested in the story of Jesus and whether it's blaspheme or not, so I can just enjoy it for what it is: A great story with fascinating characters.I love the modernization of the story- I love the "Simon Zealotes" scene with the machine guns, I love the outfits, I love Herod's cheesy number, I love all of it. I think it's a great idea and makes it more accessible for it's current audience.I found Carter's Jesus more human and likable than the one from 1973. I love seeing him get angry, happy, tormented, tired...I love seeing his fear in "would you die for me" and the looks he exchanges with Judas throughout the whole thing- it really speaks volumes.I loved Peter and Mary's "Could we start again" duet, I think their voices are better (and mesh better) than the 1973 version and while I think Simon looked a bit too much like a "boy band", I liked "Simon Zealotes" more than that crazy dancing in 1973 that I wasn't sure if I was amused or scared by. I think Mary over-acted a few scenes, but she's got a gorgeous voice and is very sensual.Which brings me to Judas. Now I'll admit- Carl in 1973 has a better voice (apparently Jerome Pradon is a Baritone singing Tenor in this) but this Judas has completely won me over. The reactions, acting, emotions- he's so wonderful I completely fell for his Judas. Even when Pradon's singing got a bit too high for him, his acting more than made up for it IMHO. I keep re-watching scenes with him and catching little gestures and expressions- especially in the scenes between him and Jesus. It doesn't hurt that I found him completely hot, mind you!The Priests were creepy, even if Caiaphas went a bit too low for his own good. Annas I found was extremely creepy and disturbing- so well done! Pilate I found was interesting. Sometimes I had to laugh at his expressions and over-enunciating, but then again, sometimes he moved me- like the tears he had in his eyes in "Pilate's dream".All and all I highly recommend this, if you come with an open mind. The first time I saw this it was a bit weird, but the second time I started getting obsessed with it.

I must say I didn't think it was a good movie. The acting was quite fake in my opinion, and the songs you hear are way to classic. Some people may like that (the classical interpretations of the songs) but I really didn't. It's a rock-musical, and it stood stay that way.I've also heard the classic version of Gethsemane of Steve Balsimo. It was very very good, but not the way the should be sang, like Ted Neeley did in the original version in 1973. Gale Edwards raped the best song of the musical. I didn't had the feeling he really meant the words he said and that's what I should feel when I hear songs, especially that song.All in all, I didn't liked the movie.