The greatest movie ever made..!

Boring, over-political, tech fuzed mess

A waste of 90 minutes of my life

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Let me start this review by saying that I'm not a Christian and I don't believe you have to be one to enjoy this movie. I first saw Godspell when it was released in the early '70's and have seen it many times since then.I was having a conversation with a friend recently (he is a pastor) and I told him that I've always felt this movie wasn't made solely for Christians. In the 70's, there were a lot of young people looking for meaning in their lives, and I firmly believe Godspell was partially an attempt to reach out to those folks.Many reviewers have had issues with the movie - John the Baptist and Judas are played by the same person, and while the crucifixion is addressed, the resurrection is not. Some have called it sacrilegious, others have found it offensive. However, if you were a young person in the 70's who was looking for some direction and wanted to find out about the basic teachings of Jesus Christ, what better way than to see a movie full of catchy pop songs and a cast of joyful young people being brought to him in (then) modern New York? Even if you were already a young Christian, you now had a way to celebrate the teachings of Christ with a style of music you were probably listening to anyway. I absolutely believe that this movie had a relatability that might have been missing in some of these people's lives. Bear in mind that the original stage version was written by a college student working on his masters.Yes, the movie is dated and silly and overacted and hammy in parts. There is a lot of skipping, singing, acting out of parables and dancing going on while most cast members are wearing clownish outfits. All of that being said, I have never seen such heartfelt joy while a message was being given - the cast looks like they are having the time of their lives. The mood does become quite somber and sad towards the end, but the movie ends on an upbeat note of hope.If I'm not mistaken, all of the cast members were unknown on the big screen when the movie was released. I think casting unknowns was a good move - I don't think it would have packed the same punch or had the same level of relatability if it had bigger names. I wanted to make a comment regarding the song "Beautiful City". I don't know what the original meaning was for sure, but my take away from it has always been that now that the cast has been taught, they can spread the word to others and help them build a strong foundation that isn't made of alabaster and chrome. Some have thought the song wasn't appropriate for the movie - I guess it all depends on your interpretation. So taken in the proper cultural perspective, Godspell is a powerful, uplifting and moving film about the basic teachings and crucifixion of Christ done '70s style. If you think you can get past the few discrepancies and the clownish clothing, it is worth a watch. And, again, you don't have to be a Christian to enjoy it.

One has to go back as far as Christmas 1978 (you remember those days when there were only 2 channels and Christmas telly was good) when the film version of the musical Godspell was premiered on TV (ITV) (There is a rumour that Christmas was invented by Charles Dickens but we all know it was Morecambe and Wise we have to thank for it). In those days I had little choice of what and when I watched so I didn't get to see it.Having owned the soundtrack album since the early eighties, and to the best of my knowledge the film not being on TV since Morcambe and Wisemas 78, It was some time in the mid noughties that out of the blue I checked the TV guide to see if it was on and low and behold there it was on channel 5.(Which just goes to show that in most cases the best stuff on commercial TV is material not actually made by them)With the greatest of respect to other films of the genre, and there were some great ones around, Godspell is a pure cinematic delight. Director David Greene (Not to be confused with David Green who directed Buster) uses the original stage cast for the film to brilliant and stunning effect. Stage style acting was used under cinematic conditions and the marriage of the two conjured up the one of the most wonderful chemistries on the big screen.Telling the gospel according to St Matthew, Jesus (Victor Garber, and John the Baptiste/Judas, (David Haskell) leads a very impressive cast of modern hippie like characters as they sing songs (some of which are based on the episcopal hymnal) by Stephen Schwartz who, in my opinion is one of the best song writers in the world, and dance through the (for the majority of the film, empty) streets of New York which itself was not so much a character but an extra, with each member of the ensemble taking it in turn to lead a musical number. The production takes us on a sight-seeing journey of the city without taking anything away from the main business in hand of using modern techniques to relate ancient philosophy.From the opening of the film when Haskell is wheeling a barrow over the Hudson Bridge, then through the prologue where the cast is gradually introduced to the audience, to the breath taking and dramatic crucifixion after which Christ's body is carried through the streets by the singing and dancing players. In fact, right till the very last end credits fade, every second of this film is a work of sheer art. The interaction of the cast with each other and with the camera, the photography and direction are above first class. Every single frame of this film shines like a powerful twinkling star. There is not one single negative thing that can be said about this film. It is a gold encrusted masterpiece where the cast and crew made a one hundred percent effort to successfully create an entertaining piece of benchmark cinema.

I remembered this film fondly from way back when I was an 11th-grader in Pittsburgh.After viewing it again on TCM, I don't think it's held up terribly well.The music in this very dated drama remains fine. Who can resist songs like "Day by Day"? The movie is also helped by its exquisite, often totally unpopulated, New York City backdrop (where I live now) -- from the angel fountain in Central Park, Times Square, and Lincoln Center to a rooftop that was part of the World Trade Center while under construction.The rest of the movie is more problematic. The stories from the Gospel of St. Matthew are told in such a manic, childish, campy way that they don't teach so much as grate. The parts of Jesus and Judas are indeed well-played, and the tension between these two characters provides a bit of much-needed depth.For this reason, this movie might appeal most to kids who have an interest in Bible stories.

A few years ago I had the opportunity to travel to England with a church group. I sang in the chorus as the group presented "Godspell" to audiences in the area around Birmingham. At the time I wasn't familiar with the stageplay. I found it a very powerful experience, and it clearly impacted the audiences who saw it as well. This was my first opportunity to see the movie version of the play. Frankly I prefer the stageplay (perhaps I'm biased, having been involved with a production) but still found the movie enjoyable.Based on the Gospel of Matthew and set to some wonderful songs, the story is set in modern day (well, 1973) New York City, where a group of people find themselves called out of the rat race by John the Baptist, get baptized in a city fountain and are then joined by Jesus (played by a young Victor Garber, whom I did not recognize!) in a romp through the city. Absolute purists and those who think the Gospel can only be told in King James Version style will likely not like this, and may even be offended by it. Jesus, for example, has a clown-like appearance to him, as do most of his disciples. And yet, that probably is an appropriate balance to the overly serious Jesus that many seem to picture in their minds. I like to think Jesus was in fact full of joy, and brought laughter to all those around him. Clown-like though he may be, the movie does, of course, become darker as it progresses, culminating, of course, in Jesus' betrayal by Judas and then his crucifixion. I found it interesting that David Haskell played both John the Baptist and Judas, and wonder whether the writers were making their own theological point in casting the same actor: that as John the Baptist prepared the way for Jesus to call his disciples, so too did Judas prepare the way for Jesus to impact the world? Maybe ...Most of Jesus' ethical teachings (revolving around love for God and love and compassion for one another) are here. I find the most moving scene to be that in which Jesus, just before his betrayal, essentially says good-bye to his disciples. Although in 1973, this would have meant nothing except a portrayal of the New York City skyline, watched with post 9/11 eyes, the repeated shots of the World Trade Centre towers perhaps serve now as a stark reminder of how necessary Jesus' message is: that love for God means nothing unless it's accompanied by love (and not hatred) for others.My biggest beef with this is the closing scene. Why go to the trouble of putting out this version of Matthew's Gospel, and leave out the most important part - not just of Matthew's but of all the Gospels - the resurrection of Jesus! Here, the disciples simply carry Jesus' body out at the end. Yes, there was a certain sense of joy as they did it, which may imply that their experience of Jesus continues to impact them, but still Jesus himself is dead. That definitely detracts from this. (Our group in England restaged the closing scene so that the resurrected Jesus celebrates with his disciples rather than simply being carried out.) That theological objection aside, overall, this is a fun presentation of the gospel message. 7/10