Truer to the play? NO way!

You're dead wrong. The first film was a disgrace to the musical. Both Dick Van Dyke and Paul Lynde (the two best ever) hated the changes. They didn't make a Bye Bye Birdie film, they made an Ann-Margret Show. This film is perfectly true to the original and beautifully. I mean, Van Dyke and Lynde are best ever and better than Alexander and Wendt, but the first one was no way as good as this one. Sorry, but this ain't a oppinon, this is a fact.

I completly agree that the original movie is one big Ann-Margaret show, it bored me half way through, all of her songs are way to drawn out and boring. The new version is much more lively and upbeat. I just saw the musical last night on broadway and the new movie follows it almost to the tee. Except of course the new songs added, which except for Settle Down I love. I believe George and Vanessa do have chemistry, as much as the actors on stage did. There an odd couple, thats the whole point. Chynna Philips is way to old but if you watch it enough it becomes believable. A Lot of Livin to Do is fun and I love Mark Kudish (where did he disapeer to? ) So, all all if your looking for a better version then the original and a more true to play verison the newer one is the one for you.

While I do agree that this movie is not "truer" than the original, I have to disagree with Birdie having a weak second act. For what the show is, a musical and a comedy with catchy songs, it needs discipline from the orchestra and allot of energy from the actors to make it shine. If the musicians and actors don't bring their A-game, it's going to run flat. And this production ran flat.

The actors in this movie were using big-screen acting techniques for a production based on a broadway musical, which was shown on tv. Why they would act in a subdued cinema-style is beyond me. The acting felt lazy with no attention given to the levels that a line needs to work in a comedy, nor much given to the timing to make the lines comical. Except for the actress playing Mrs. MacAfee, the production was almost performed as a drama.

Then there was "the orchestra." I'm still not convinced the music was not performed by a synthesizer, despite what the liner notes say. There was no light "springtime glow" the musical is known for. There was no sound of the 50's, just a very hodge-podge "modern sound," not-unlike Grease. The musicians sounded less like trained professionals that play off one another at slightly different beats and different volumes, and more like a rehearsal accompanist banging out notes on the piano. The orchestrations felt lazy too.

For a show involving an Elvis Presley-type and screaming, hysterical teenagers, it could seem on the surface to be an easy-to-perform show. While it is allot of fun, it takes allot of time and hard work to fine tune, something this production seemed to skip. But for a well-disciplined company, Birdie's second act can be high energy with one plot point overlapping another. It's not a drama, but a parody of American suburban life (in the 50's,) satirizing social phenomenons like Birdie, Ed Sullivan, prejudice of certain races and marriage, back when that was about a man and a woman.

Although this movie is much more like the broadway production, the original movie captures the energy needed to have the audience on the side of every character without demonizing them; This is a parody, with no big antagonist needed. Sure, allot of the new lines in the first movie weren't as good as the play, half of the songs were cut and the orchestrations took on a different life of their own, it didn't have Chita Rivera, Dick Gautier, or Kay Medford, which it sorely needed. Yet, it was successful. The '95 movie had Vanessa Williams, who played other Chita Rivera rolls and Jason Alexander, who although would have been better as Mr. MacAfee, had theater and tv experience...It should have worked.