Bye Bye Birdie

Although I always loved the 1963 film version of Bye Bye Birdie I never realized how different it was from the Broadway production until I saw this remake on TV. This was an absolute joy to watch from beginning to end and more tuned to older audiences than the 1963 version which was aimed primarily at the younger set.

In my opinion this was better than the original. The cast is great. Jason Alexander shines as Albert, he has a fantastic voice!! Vanessa Williams was a wonderful Rosie!! All of the cast was fabulous. If you are a fan of the original film or the musical see this version. It's alot of fun!!

This TV adaptation of Bye Bye Birdie has a few things going for it. Vanessa Williams is sensational, and Jason Alexander, surprise, surprise, is a good singer and adequate hoofer. It follows the original play far better than the film, although, it also takes liberties with it. And doesn't have to pull its punches to quite the same extent as the movie did (1963 was kind of crossover year, where attitudes and mores were beginning to loosen up, but American movies were still stuck in the fifties.The TV version also gets rid of that horrible sped-up ballet that nearly ruins the movie version (the play had another ballet entirely, which is not in either the film or the TV version).

On the minus side, as good as Jason Alexander is, he wasn't right for the part. I'm not sure Dick Van Dyke was either, but he was better. George Wendt adds nothing to the mix, especially when compared to Paul Lynde. The character of Kim McAfee is pared back down to its original content, which is just as well. Chynna Phillips is woefully miscast as a teenager and really can't compete with Ann-Margert (who could?). Marc Kudisch's Conrad is a good imitation of Conway Twitty, who was the original template for Conrad (not Elvis), although Jesse Pearson (who looked like he was imitating Elvis) was better.

On the balance, worth watching if you're interested in Broadway musicals and their adaptations, but it's not a must-see.

The 1963 film was not perfect, with a couple of dated references, two casting choices that seemed off and the story sometimes did suffer in a messy kind of way from the tinkering made. It was however colourful, energetic, witty and when the cast worked they were just wonderful. In short, I don't love it but there is much to like about it and gets a bad rep from those who have the mindset that anything that makes changes from the source material is immediately to be put down upon.

People will love that this film from 1995 is closer to the stage version, especially in the dialogue and story. However, those who loved the energy, colour and wit that the 1963 film had might find themselves short-changed. I fall into that camp I'm afraid to say, and I also feel that being more faithful doesn't always mean it's better. It does have good things certainly, the songs are wonderful and I did like two performances.

Vanessa Williams was the best asset, she is not just charming but is much more of a spitfire than Janet Leigh was, and her singing is heavenly especially in What Did I Ever See in Him, also the best individual rendition. Tyne Daly is also deliciously overbearing and immensely fun to watch, she and Maureen Stapleton are about equal here. However, I didn't care for the rest of the cast. Jason Alexander does give his all and he can sing, but he also tries too hard and has little of the effortless sham charm that Dick Van Dyke brought to Albert.

Whereas the performance of Harry from Paul Lynde was one of the 1963 film's high points, it was one of the things in this version that was less good. George Wendt lumbers his way through it and has very little comic timing, when he does show it it doesn't feel very natural. Marc Kudisch is a slight improvement over Jesse Pearsson, but neither of the Conrads worked in either version. Pearsson's performance suffered from that he did very little with a character that was underdeveloped in the film already, Kudisch has the better looks and voice but also came across as annoying to me from playing Conrad too broadly. Jason Gaffney is just as bland as Bobby Rydell, so like I said with Daly and Stapleton being equally good I'd deem Gaffney and Rydell just as bad(Rydell gets a marginal point for being more believable as a dork).

Chynna Phillips was the worst though. She doesn't believe at all as a teenager, at least 10 years too old, and makes little if any attempt to act like one. She also struggles with the high notes, continually sounding strained, and is even worse as an actress. Ann Margaret(much of which the 1963 film revolved around) had charm, likability and command, Phillips just never seems sure what to do with herself.

The film doesn't look amateurish or anything, the scenery and costumes are very nicely done and it is competently filmed at least. The lighting is rather drab though and there was always a TV movie feel to it that was never quite shaken off. The dialogue that was delivered with such elegance and wit in the earlier version here despite being closer to that of the stage version didn't have anywhere near the same impact and sounded like the actors were reading rather than living the lines. The satire was also nowhere near as sharp or witty either. The story is more succinct, but I didn't feel as much of the farcical comedy of errors quality that the 1963 film did(even with the tinkerings) or the charm, colour or energy. The choreography was surprisingly dull, there is an effort at pizazz but done in a clichéd way and even in a way that sucks the film of vitality or warmth.

Overall, more faithful but also inferior, Williams, Daly and the songs are great but everything else falls flat. 3/10 Bethany Cox

I think it's mostly due to some of the most...questionable casting I have ever seen that makes this movie not work. I mean, they make this big to-do about Rosie being Spanish in this one. I think that's because Chia Rivera had the role in the play, but Chia Rivera is (assumingly) Spanish. Why wasn't a Spanish lady cast in this one instead of Vanessa Williams? It's down-right ridiculous and they keep emphasising that she's Spanish to make it even worse. At least in the 1963 one, when Janet Leigh played Rosie they were smart enough to change the last name and not try to pass her off as something she wasn't.

The casting of Chynna Phillips as Kim was every bit as...well, wrong. She was obviously pushing 30 and quite looked it to, as did every other "teen" in this film. As for Jason Alexander as a romantic lead? Uh..no comment. Plus, I hate when Albert wants to become an English teacher instead of a scientist. I'm aware that it is in the play and such, but it's boring, especially that song that keeps getting reprised where Rosie sings about him wanting to be one. And Alexander is just not right for that part. But nobody really is in this film, sorry to say. Even the usually good Tyne Daly cannot is quite grating and hammy as Albert's mother, and some part where she emerges from a bay of water to give somebody advice and then swims away was horrificly ridiculous.

And what about the climactic ending? I'm not sure about the play, but the 1963 film was able to get to its big climactic scene of Conrad Birdie finally being able to perform at the Ed Sullivan show, after they got rid of the Russians who almost pre-empted him. The people behind this film said in an interview that they got rid of all of the Cold War humor, but why? Maybe the Cold War had ended in 1995, but this is a film set in the 60s when it was still going strong. Did they think Russians watching would be offended? They understand history and can comprehend that those aren't our feelings toward them now. I hate when films try to be all PC like that. It just makes them look bad.

But being PC wasn't the only thing that made this look bad. It was gone way before the ending.