Chorus Line

A Chorus Line is a great movie with a very well developed plot and a top notch cast. Being a part of this type of industry, I can say that they conveyed this world very accurately and brought it to life in a large, blunt manner that did not try to romanticize it in any way. The entire film takes place in the bare back of a theatre stage during an audition and cabin fever is showcased in a very effective light. Each song is also brought to life beautifully, with all of them bringing us a new perspective on different characters.

I will say that it was far too predictable, it never even bothered to make the effort to surprise its audience, each outcome for each individual character could be seen from a mile away. I was getting annoyed with myself for not being in any way surprised after a while.

The performances are all around terrific, Michael Douglas really shines in this unconventional role of a theatre director, he has a great presence and intrigue about him in it. Alyson Reed steals every scene she is in and has an undeniable chemistry with Douglas that is such a delight to watch.

Toe tapping entertainment. Not a typical joyous musical, A Chorus Line is a little bleaker than what we may be used to, but it's a great watch and I would recommend it to anyone looking for a good musical.

A group of aspiring performers audition for the next big show.

Best Performance: Alyson Reed

If you read most of the reviews here you can notice how negative they arfe, and even those that are nicer always have a slightly negative comment. I know that most of the time comparison is not good and when you are talking about one of the greatest shows ever created, the screen version gets the worst part. To be fair and if we forget about the original show the movies is very good. The music, the dancing and the cast are totally believable. I know they cut some songs, others were modified (not for worst - Dance for me it 's brilliant) and others send a completely different message to viewers (What I did for Love). We know that has happened before when a musical goes from stage to screen. but what we have to bear in mind is....is the final product a good movie? Yes, it is. The only downbeat I notice in the movie is that I notice a few edits strange...for example when you can hear some lines from HELLO TWELVE and suddenly one of the boys starts singing a different song. it looks very abrupt in that moment. To sum up A CHORUS LINE is a very good movie made in a decade when musical was not only dead but buried six feet under. So I was really impressed to see that in that decade this movie and Little shop of horrors were made and time just shows everybody that both movies deserved a better audience and better reviews.

This movie brought my hopes down honestly. I was very excited to see it at first, but it didn't turn out too well.

Okay, first of all, it's supposed to be a musical but they didn't even sing that much. Second, the transition of talking to singing SUCKED. It was the worst ever in the history of musicals. I'm not kidding.

But I have to admit, the dancing was very good. I mean, it has to be, since the movie is "A Chorus Line" and that's a big part of it.

The actors who portrayed their characters well were Audrey Landers (as Val Clark), Michael Douglas (as Zach), and Alyson Reed was pretty okay as Cassie.

It was just an "okay" movie, know what I mean? I liked the Broadway version better.

If you've never seen a stage production of "A Chorus Line" (no small feat, since it was not only once the longest running show on Broadway but has had extensive touring and regional exposure), then the movie version is perhaps better than nothing. However, an acquaintance with the source material makes one realize how much the film falls short of the power of the original.

Michael Bennett's magnum opus was conceived as a tribute to "gypsies"--Broadway chorus dancers--and in a way, to the every bodies and nobodies from all walks of life. The characters in "Chorus Line" are not rich or famous, nor are they likely to be, and over the course of the story they bare legs, heart and soul just for the chance to be one body in a unified, faceless corps. Bennett brought out each dancer's individuality, making each a loving, well-defined portrait of a human being with all the hopes and dreams, problems and shames that everyone has but nobody ever sees. But director Richard Attenborough undermines this essential concept in two very distinct ways.

First, there is the presence of Michael Douglas as Zach, the choreographer who puts the auditioning dancers through the paces. Granted, if one must have a "name" actor in "A Chorus Line" then this is the place for it--Zach neither sings nor dances, and exists mostly as a God-like voice issuing from the dark of the auditorium. But Douglas' very presence overshadows the dancers, who should be the heart and soul of the show. True, his name is listed in the credits alphabetically with everyone else's, but every time the camera's on him we go "Hey, that's Michael Douglas," pulling our focus from where it should be.

Also pulling focus is the undue emphasis Attenborough puts on Cassie, the veteran dancer who was once Zach's lover. Although Zach and Cassie's relationship is a part of the stage show, it is but once facet among the many stories told over the evening. Attenborough makes Cassie the central part of the film, shortchanging several other characters in order to provide flashbacks of her life with Zach and her former glory days as a featured dancer. She's even given the eleven o'clock number "What I Did For Love," a song that originally was written as the dancers' anthem to pursuing the dream of Broadway without regret but is here employed as just another torch ballad. (Composer Marvin Hamlish and lyricist Edward Kleban have expressed dissatisfaction with this song, claiming the lyrics were too generalized; its misuse here unfortunately proves their point.) Near the end of the film, when Cassie tells Zach that all the dancers on stage are special, the words ring hollow, not only because of all the screen time she's gotten but because (unlike the stage version) she's been backstage and away from the audition for the majority of the proceedings.

Now and then, one gets a glimpse of what "A Chorus Line" should be. The dancing is good and photographed well, and the music (though over synthesized for the film and sung by mostly mediocre voices) still has impact. But this landmark musical deserved a far more memorable and worthy screen incarnation than it has been given.

Why all the bad reviews? Is it dated? Yes. But the music, the dancing, the really skimpy costumes all makes it magical.

I recently saw the documentary following the Broadway revival and felt the tug of nostalgia pulling to watch the original. I was watching mainly for the music and the dancing. They did not disappoint.

Of course THEATRE is best live and in person - that goes without saying. But I enjoyed my viewing of A Chorus Line.