A Chorus Line (1985)

SYNOPSIS: A crowd of young hopefuls try out for a Broadway chorus line. But only eight of them are to be selected.COMMENT: Following their joint success on "Gandhi" (1982), director Richard Attenborough and photographer Ron Taylor again collaborated three years later on "A Chorus Line", this time with considerably less critical success. Although Attenborough copped all the blame, the fault (if there was indeed a fault) in transferring this mighty stage success to the screen should have been sheeted home to Arnold Shulman instead. It was Schulman who made all the alterations that inflame most people who compare the two productions. All Attenborough did was to direct, and very competently (and at times quite inventively) too. True, Michael Douglas does hand in a rather abrasive performance that tends to throw the movie off-center, but that's the way the movie was obviously written and cast. I do agree that too much attention in the movie script is given to the Mike Douglas/Alyson Reed plot and that this swings the audience's attention away from other hopefuls in the chorus line, but nonetheless, Miss Reed (here making her screen debut) is a charming lass and fully deserves this extra attention. I'm more concerned that the singing (with a couple of notable exceptions) was at best mediocre. But it's rare to find a performer who is equally deft in both fields (no-one would claim that either Gene Kelly or Fred Astaire were great vocalists). This movie rightly focuses on the dancing – and that is consistently superb! In fact, "electrifying" is the word!

For what it is--a slice-of-life of a group of people, trying to make the big-time and at least be able to say that they were on Broadway--it's a fine work. I admit I haven't seen the stage play--which many sources say is far superior to this filmic adaptation.I'm rather surprised that: a) Michael Douglas gets star status here, or is even involved. He doesn't dance here. The film would have worked so much better if it showed his character showing some dance moves and getting across to the dancers what he wanted. Both his character would have connected better with the dancers, and he would have connected better with filmgoers; and b) that Lord Richard Attenborough got involved with this: It's definitely not his forte or cup of tea. Perhaps he wanted to expand his directorial palette, or that some of his influences were masters of the genre, such as Lubitsch or Minnelli. Personally, I wish I knew, for he has done much better work in his career.Overall, not one of the better of contemporary (post-1970) musicals, but worth seeing once, if renting or seeing that it's coming on TV. Not a top purchase priority, unless you are a Douglas or Attenborough completest, and then prepare to be disappointed.

This film chronicles the gruelling audition process for a major Broadway play."A Chorus Line" starts off with an impressive, highly choreographed and impressively synchronised dance performance, but unfortunately the good points end there. The rest of the film features individual auditioning members trying to show off their personalities, and sometimes they really show off so much that it becomes annoying. Who thought that "Year of the Chicken" joke is funny? It is not funny, it is just plain annoying.What evokes more negative feelings is Michael Douglas' character, called Zach. He spends most of the time shouting at people, especially at Cassie. And when he makes people dance, half the time he doesn't even bother watching the dance. The jolly atmosphere is wholly destroyed by Zach.I have not seen the Broadway musical, but as one of the longest running Broadway shows, it has got to be better than "A Chorus Line" the film.

This is one of the worst film adaptations of a musical ever made. The stage version of A Chorus Line is wonderful. This movie misses the mark in almost every way. Even the casting is baffling. Take Audrey Landers as Val. "Dance 10 Looks 3" is Val's song. Val's story is that she is a great dancer but a 3 in the looks department. Yes, she finds a solution, but ultimately she's a great dancer. What do the brilliant filmmakers do? They hire an actress who can't dance and is famous for looking great. Way to miss the boat.Then there's the choreography. I'm sure Michael Bennett was turning over in his grave. Why didn't they use his choreography? It really can't be improved upon.