A Chorus Line (1985) User Reviews

A Chorus Line Apparently Differs From Stage Version

[CitizenCaine · 7/10 · 16 March 2009]

As many reviewers here have noted, the film version differs quite a bit from the stage version of the story. I have never seen the stage version of the story, and therefore I have a more favorable review of the film than many other reviewers. Perhaps Richard Attenborough was not the best choice for director of the film, but the film is still an entertaining account of several dancers trying to make the big time in choreographer Michael Douglas' show. The film does right by not selecting any famous actors or performers to wind up in the final try-out group. This way our attention is focused on the dancers' movements and individual stories and struggles as they unfold during a marathon day of try-outs. Douglas is also probably not the best choice for the part. Apparently some songs were cut out in favor of a new one, and the backstage cliché-ridden story of a romantic liaison between a dancer and the choreographer was added. I have to say in all fairness this was the weakest part of the film. The repeated intrusions Cassie made during try-outs appear to mirror the almost desperate pleas one often has to make when engaging in the artistic professions in the absence of talent and/or luck. However, this aspect of the film has been done to death in the past, and it's curious to see this tired old shoe kicking its heel up once again. The revelations of the dancers themselves began promisingly enough with the "I can do that" number, but then it plodded a little at various points while the dancers were telling their stories. Frankly, their stories differed little from real life folks who never get a chance like this. *** of 4 stars.

Rough-Edged

[Dockelektro · 6/10 · 27 July 2001]

A strange picture, as it peels the outer rims of human feelings and aims straight for the raw. Auditioning for a Broadway stage musical are hundreds of youngsters who dream with a place in the limelight. The plot, you can imagine, is basically an audition, with all its highs and lows. And when I say it has raw feelings, i'm talking about the cold process of selection, which is encarnated by the obscure character of Michael Douglas, who, in the obscurity of the audience, with only a little light next to him, says who stays and who goes, even if he has to be brutal sometimes ("Then don't dance!!!", he says shouting to a girl who didn't have any dance classes). The result is a film sustained by the different phases of selection and the suspense of who is going to be a star and who has to leave, which, altogether, will charm only dance-addicts and everyone who would like to be in one of these shows one day.

OK musical therapy session

[n_r_koch · 5/10 · 11 July 2008]

Not a great movie, but it won't waste your time. It is far from the worst musical by a non-musical director. No one who heard Marlon Brando sing for Joseph Manckiewicz in "Guys and Dolls" can doubt that. They even had the right idea with the Cassie subplot, although it doesn't work too well the way it's done. How would anyone really film this thing? On stage "A Chorus Line" gets all its power from the stripped-down electric proximity of the speakers. But if you don't open it up for the film then you have got a talking picture of a line of people for 2 hours. The only places they really screw up are cutting away from "I Can Do That" to show Cassie doing nothing (nice irony, unfortunately it trashes the dance number) and in the scene where the "winners" are selected, which is not credible. The choreography is noisy, but it was the '80s and cargo pants and MTV were in the air along with coca dust. Maybe it was necessary to cover up some of the dancers' limitations? Every time Alyson Reed tried and failed to lay back and put her hand on the floor or hang her heel on her nose, I thought of Eleanor Powell. (To see someone actually do those moves, and do them in one take, check out "Broadway Melody of 1940".)

Not the singular sensation it should have been

[divaclv · 27 October 2004]

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.

Wasn't as good as I expected.

[michellebocanegra_1992 · 6/10 · 21 April 2006]

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.

It hasn't aged well

[NAHNCEE · 7/10 · 7 August 2004]

I just watched A Chorus Line again for the first time since it came out in 1985 (now is 2004). It hasn't aged well, especially in comparison with the stage show that it beat out for all the acclaim that year, "Chicago". Michael Dougles is doing an indecipherable clenched jaw performance, is if he is suffering intense inner angst or a gall bladder spasm. Cassie, the returning heroine, is just plain annoying. We are never shown ANYthing to show why she is "special", what she can do that no one else can. The personal stories of the different chorus line dancers are interesting, kinda. I sort of think we've gone beyond where an announcement of "I'm black" is shocking or amusing or anything beyond, "Eh?" Likewise, similar announcements about being Puerto Rican or Jewish or gay. I keep comparing this movie to "Chicago" and its vim and vitality ... and Bob Fosse's choreography. Perhaps if Fosse had choreographed "Chorus Line" we would have seen why Cassie was special and a stand-out. But then I guess, if Fosse had choreographed it, it would have been "All That Jazz".

Another glaring example of directorial miscasting.

[dave13-1 · 6/10 · 12 April 2012]

Richard Attenborough DID direct a musical once before (Oh What a Lovely War) and was thus considered 'qualified' to adapt this wonderful stage production for the screen, but he really wasn't. The only film maker who could really have done it justice was Bob Fosse, and he was busy with other projects. Revealing the grunge behind the glamor and the heartbreak behind the stage smiles was what Fosse did better than anybody, and that is what is crucially missing here. The movie lacks the necessary sharp eye for backstage details, and as a result the world of the Broadway stage presented here winds up lacking that elusive component of dream stuff that resonates in our minds when we think 'Show Biz'. The resulting film of A Chorus Line is more like watching a bunch of people interview for a job than watching hopefuls seeking to make their dreams come true. The staging looks okay and the songs are still okay but the sawdust and the glitter are missing. And somebody should have taken Attenborough aside and reminded him that 'What I Did For Love' is the show-stopper, and could he please make it memorable. It isn't. A great stage musical has been turned into a merely okay movie experience. Pity. 5.5/10...

A Pale Imitation of the Original...

[ijonesiii · 4/10 · 30 November 2005]

For those who never saw A CHORUS LINE onstage and their only exposure to the story was this film, this film is OK as movie musicals, nothing special, just OK. I have seen the show on Broadway 4 times and even auditioned for a touring company of the show once and for someone who pretty much memorized the original production, the 1985 film version is so dreadful on so many levels that I don't even know where to begin. First of all, for those who have never auditioned for a theatrical production, let me assure you that IRL when you audition for a play, the director, producer, and choreographer never ask personal questions and don't give a crap about why you wanted to become a performer. A real theatrical audition, whether it be for a play or a musical, rarely takes more than five minutes. If you're auditioning as a dancer, you get shown a 64-bar dance combination once, you do it, and then they decide immediately whether you're in or out. Michael Bennett's original concept of the show was to flesh out the lives of dancers and introduce to the uninitiated the passion for performing and why so many sacrifice so much for so little. The play is about these dancers. First of all, director Richard Attenborough took so much focus off the dancers by beefing up the Cassie/Zach relationship and by casting Michael Douglas as Zach. In the play, you NEVER see Zach...he is just a voice in the back of the theater and his relationship with Cassie is barely touched upon. Cassie shown in the cab in traffic trying to get to the audition and upstairs talking to Larry (a character who is not even in the play)was all added for the movie and took so much focus off what the story is about. Major musical numbers were cut or rethought. The opening number in the play "I Hope I Get It" shows all of the dancers doing a jazz and ballet combination and then people get eliminated. In the movie they jam three hundred dancers onstage together and show them in closeup to disguise the fact that they have cast people in the film who can't dance (can you say "Audrey Landers"). "Goodbye 12, Goodbye 13, Hello Love", a brilliant vocal exploration of these dancers' childhood's jaundiced memories was reworked as "Surprise, Surprise" mainly a vehicle for the late Gregg Burge as Richie. The show's most famous song, "What I Did for Love" which in the show was a touching allegory sung by the entire cast about what they give up to dance, becomes just another standard love song in the film, performed tiredly by a miscast Allyson Reed as Cassie. Jeffrey Hornaday's choreography for the film is dull and unimaginative and doesn't hold a candle to Michael Bennett' original staging and when you're making a movie about dancers, the choreography has to be special. There are a couple of good dancers in the film, the previously mentioned Gregg Burge as Richie, Michelle Johnston as Bebe, and Janet Jones as Judy, but they are hardly given the opportunity to show what they can do, yet Audrey Landers, who can barely walk and chew gum at the same time, is given one of the show's best numbers, "Dance 10, Looks 3." I will admit that the finale, "One" is dazzling, but you have to wait almost two hours for that. I would say that if you never saw A CHORUS LINE onstage, this film might be worth a look, but if you are a devotee of the original Broadway musical...be afraid...be very afraid.

Enjoyable

[kz917-1 · 8/10 · 8 May 2017]

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.

The Whole Is Less than the Sum of the Parts

[JamesHitchcock · 6/10 · 5 December 2010]

The traditional cinema musical, so popular in the forties, fifties and sixties, went into something of a decline in the seventies, even though the early years of that decade had seen two particularly fine examples, "Fiddler on the Roof" and "Cabaret", and by the eighties the genre was all but dead. There were, admittedly, a few modern musicals like "Fame" and "Staying Alive", based around pop music and dance, but these were films of a very different type to the likes of "Carousel" or "The Sound of Music".

This decline may have had something to do with the changing demographics of the cinema-going public; audiences were becoming increasingly dominated by the younger generation rather than families. In the theatre the musical was not in decline at all during the seventies and eighties, the decades when Stephen Sondheim was conquering Broadway and Andrew Lloyd-Webber the West End. "A Chorus Line" was the most successful American musical during this period. It opened in 1975 and ran for fifteen years; by the time it closed in 1990 it had become the longest-running show in Broadway history, although the record it set has since been surpassed. It was so successful that it became virtually impossible not to film it.

"A Chorus Line" was originally a stage musical about a stage musical. A group of dancers, both male and female, are auditioning for parts in the chorus line of a glossy Broadway production. In charge of the proceedings is Zach, the show's autocratic director, who will make the final decision as to who is hired. Each of the aspiring hopefuls is asked to tell his or her story and to explain why he or she loves to dance. They respond by giving a monologue or performing a musical number in a variety of different styles and moods. Among those trying out for a part is Cassie, Zach's former girlfriend. It is made clear that Cassie was at one time a big Broadway star, but it is never really explained why she has been reduced to auditioning for a part in the chorus after taking major starring roles.

The film is unusual in that it is a musical where the leading male character does not do any singing or dancing. (It is not, however, unique in that respect- Brian, the male lead in "Cabaret", does not sing or dance either). Zach is played by Michael Douglas, by far the biggest star in the film; most of the other actors were relatively unknown. (Some, such as Pam Klinger and Yamil Borges, have never appeared in any other film). About the only other well-known name is Audrey Landers, best known for playing JR's mistress in "Dallas", and she seems miscast here. Her character, Val, is supposed to be a fine dancer but physically unattractive, hence the title of her number "Dance 10, Looks 3", whereas Audrey is strikingly beautiful but not a strong dancer. I have never seen"A Chorus Line" on stage, so cannot personally say how well the concept works in the theatre, although the success of the original production would suggest that a lot of people thought that it worked very well. In the cinema, however, it does not really succeed. Visually it is too stagy and static, never attempting to open the story out or to take advantage of the greater possibilities afforded by the cinematic medium. Dramatically, twenty main characters is far too many. It means that virtually all of the film has to be taken up with introducing one character after another, with no real attempt at developing these characters or at telling their stories in full. Even the crucial Cassie/Zach relationship is dealt with in a rather perfunctory way.

The film was directed by Richard Attenborough, who may not have been the right man for the job. Attenborough's greatest successes as a director have been films like "Gandhi", "Chaplin" and "Shadowlands", all with a single narrative plot line and with strong emphasis being placed on character development. He has only directed one other musical, the lame satire "Oh! What a Lovely War!". A film like "A Chorus Line", with its claustrophobic indoor setting, its episodic structure and its constant shifts of emphasis from one character to another, seems very foreign to the Attenborough style.

"A Chorus Line" is not altogether a bad film. Many of the song-and-dance numbers are well performed, and some of the performers are genuinely talented. I was particularly impressed by Alyson Reed who plays Cassie. Overall, however, I found the film too disjointed, with too many segments which do not come together to make a dramatically satisfying whole. The sort of film where the whole is less than the sum of the parts. 6/10

Best musical of all time on Broadway to a mangled mess of celluloid

[tscahill · 1/10 · 15 March 2006]

I saw the original "Chorus Line" on Broadway God knows how many times and felt the passion, despair and joy come from this live experience in the theater. Michael Bennett knew he would have to re-imagine "Chorus" for the screen but could never figure out how to do it. If the man who came up with the show is stumped - that should answer your question. There are some shows that are simply made to be seen live - with an audience. However, Richard Attenborough fresh of the musical work of "Ghandi" and dancing with animals in "Doctor Doolittle" ended up directing this film which bore little to no resemblance to the stage show. Horrible songs were added (Surprise! Surprise!), great songs were dropped or given to other characters (which didn't make sense). Michael Douglas was mis-cast. People that couldn't dance tried to act and there was the sexy "Landers" woman who couldn't sing, act, or dance - I guess she had just finished being Ghandi's wife. The dances by Jeffrey Hornaday look like nothing more than schlock from "Flashdance" rejects and nothing works. I sat there stunned at how something so riveting and emotional could be drained to nothing. If you truly love this show and it is coming back to Broadway in 2006 - see it but don't think that the long running musical event that was "A Chorus Line" has any thing at all to do with this film.

Musical Fun with Very Grounded Emotion,

[lesleyharris30 · 8/10 · 30 November 2017]

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

Not Half Bad

[silverdragonblood · 7/10 · 6 August 2005]

Okay, for a musical, this really wasn't all that bad. The dancing really was incredible, the singing pretty good, and the plot line intriuging. I mean, it wasn't my favorite musical ever, but it was good. The lighting wasn't great and the directing wasn't anything special, but it wasn't awful. Acting was okay with some people, and others weren't great, but it didn't distract from the rest of the movie.

Overall, the thing that really made this show was the dancing. For anyone that enjoys incredible dance, this movie is definitely top notch. For others, it's worth seeing, but don't expect an all time favorite.

Gandhi

[don_agu · 3/10 · 2 February 2005]

I wonder who, how and more importantly why the decision to call Richard Attenborough to direct the most singular sensation to hit Broadway in many many years? He's an Academy Award winning director. Yes, he won for Gandhi you moron! Jeremy Irons is an Academy winning actor do you want to see him play Rocky Balboa? He has experience with musicals. Really? "Oh what a lovely war" have you forgotten? To answer your question, yes! The film is a disappointment, clear and simple. Not an ounce of the live energy survived the heavy handedness of the proceedings. Every character danced beautifully they were charming but their projection was theatrical. I felt nothing. But when I saw it on stage I felt everything. The film should have been cast with stars, unknown, newcomers but stars with compelling unforgettable faces even the most invisible of the group. Great actors who could dance beautifully. Well Michael Douglas was in it. True I forgot I'm absolutely wrong and you are absolutely right. Nothing like a Richard Attenborough Michael Douglas musical.

Stage to screen unsuccessful

[thespis75 · 12 November 2004]

Having seen, studied, read, and researched ACL and Michael Bennett, I have to say that the show does not translate well to the screen. The movie is 'good' at best, but completely loses much of what made ACL so successful on Broadway. The constant swipes to Cassie (taking a cab into the city; talking with Larry; etc) were completely unnecessary, and many of the great songs and monologues were shortened or (worse) cut altogether! Whereas I like Michael Douglas, I feel that he was a poor choice for Zach. Michael Douglas should not have been cast as Zach for the exact same reason Kevin Kline was not cast as Zach in the original production: he couldn't dance.

I often wonder if Michael Bennett would have approved of this film.

A reasonably entertaining film

[maryprince · 6/10 · 17 April 2017]

I do not think that this film is as bad as some of the reviewers on this site would have us believe! Considering that the film is more than thirty years old, the visual quality and choreography has 'held up' well despite the passage of time and I cared about the characters. Considering that most of the action takes place within a single location (the theatre), the director did well at keeping the pace of the film dynamic and the cast was very talented (they could sing, dance and act). I have seen worse, enjoyed the film as a piece of light entertainment and would recommend this movie.

Ditto with several other reviewers

[Andreapworth · 7/10 · 5 June 2012]

If you were going to make a film of the wonderful, wonderful stage version, which I have also seen, the only way I could have 'devised it' is to simply put a camera in the back of the theater, do close-ups during some of the montages (Hello 12, hello 13, etc. and during "everything was beautiful at the Ballet", and so many other wonderful montages that MADE the musical so fabulous, and just film the damn thing. And I agree, Michael Douglas is a great actor, but totally wrong and wasted in this role. No way could I buy him as Zach.

And Richard Attenborough - yeah, a good director, but what the hell does he know about musicals?? Try to catch one of the touring companies that are doing it. Yes, for someone who has been on stage, sung on stage, but never danced at this level, the whole thing still brings goose bumps to my arms. And, unlike Diana, I feel a lot of something, rather than nothing.

The problem is, someone forgot it's a musical...

[Gislef · 6/10 · 16 April 1999]

A Chorus Line, when it functions as a Broadway musical, works fine. Unfortunately, the director and writers forget that occasionally. Then we get the romantic interest/subplot between Zach and his ex. This actually gets in the way once or twice, when a musical number is reduced to background noise while characters have a conversation about the subplot in the foreground. Arrgh. The "Music and the Mirror" piece gets re-adapted for the movie, and not to the better. And "One" gets reprised once or twice too often for my taste (although that's a flaw of the original musical as well). Very entertaining when it sticks to the musical, but loses a point or two on my rating when it moves away from that.

Wrong Steps Every Step Of The Way

[shark-43 · 2/10 · 29 June 2007]

Yes, I was lucky enough to see the long-running original production of Michael Bennett's hit musical. It was an amazing experience and I paid to see the movie when it hit theatres back in 1985. It is awful. Almost everything fails. First off, Attenborough (a fine actor, a good director with the right material) is a sorry choice - almost as bad as when John Huston was hired to mangle ANNIE. The camera is always in the wrong place - they chop up the songs and the CASTING!!! They are awful - the power of the play was these dancers - these hungry, talented performers just wanted a chance to show what they could do and when they got their chance - you couldn't take your eyes off of them. But this cast just gets by dancing, does a "nice" job singing but none of them spark one bit. In fact, look up the cast on IMDb - none of them really went on to do anything much. (OK, OK, Janet Jones married Gretzky - sheesh). So this cinema trainwreck does not capture for one second the magic, the desperation, the passion of the stage musical. A total strike-out! (But even though they try to smother the music - the great music still rises up at times and reminds people how great the score was).

It's time to be fair

[Steed-2 · 8/10 · 8 November 2010]

When this movie was released it was a flop. What a pity!, many said. Now 25 years later and watching the movie I have to admit that the movie is quite good. Not perfect but no the mess many fans claim to be. The first part of the movie is just PERFECT, AMAZING....with unforgettable auditions, dancing, ... The big problem starts when they talk about their lives. From that point the movie has got its ups and downs. But it never falls in a total mess. You can feel the sweat, the hard work, their dreams and hopes.......you can feel LIFE! If we compare it with other musicals of the time, maybe A CHORUS LINE and LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS are the best examples of good musicals in a dark age for this gender. Both of them are far superior to other titles and both of them have got their ups and downs. SO to be fair A CHORUS LINE is a very good movie. OK, some changes from the stage production, but it always happens when they translate musicals from stage to screen. Evan some fans have said that the choreography is just awful. Come on guys, the movie isn't cheap and the spend money in the most important thing: dancers and dancing. So if you have never seen the stage version just give A CHORUS LINE a chance. You won't be disappointed. And please Michael Douglas, don't be ashamed about it and stop making jokes about your part in this movie as the worst choice of your life. A flop doesn't mean something it's bad.

A Chorus Line

[henry8-3 · 6/10 · 8 November 2020]

A bunch of talented dancers audition for a part in a Broadway show under the scrutiny of tough choreographer Michael Douglas including Douglas' ex and one time big star. In focussing on their acting he asks them to talk about themselves which they do, usually via musical numbers.

The drama in all this, including the worry about whether they'll get selected is actually pretty tame and Douglas' tough guy choreographer is a bit of a cliche. What makes this so much fun are the fabulous songs and dance numbers.

One Singular Disaster

[ulalame · 1/10 · 6 May 2004]

I admit to having been a fan of the original stage production. I never saw the movie version until very lately on cable, and watched it with anticipation, to see my memories brought alive again, because I adored the original show. Imagine my dismay.

This has to be the worst translation of a Broadway show to film ever made. They changed the story, they changed the songs, they lost the soul. I was expecting a trip down memory lane, singing to the extraordinarily touching Music and the Mirror, At the Ballet, and Hello Twelve, Hello Thirteen. Not! Not only did they adulterate the music to an almost unrecognizable point, but they messed up the storyline, adding songs and exterior plotlines (hello Cassie and Michael Douglas) not present in the original, and injecting "drama" where it wasn't necessary. The original had enough pathos on its own. If you were a fan of the original Broadway show, don't bother. I'm sorry I wasted my time, and diluted my memories, watching this tripe.

Watch it for what it is

[ponyiq · 8/10 · 2 June 2007]

I watched this movie after seeing it on Broadway. I love the Broadway musical and I love the movie. I watched the movie like it was not related to the Broadway show. I am an avid reader and have seen what happens to most books when they are turned into movies, so I developed a philosophy really early. Assume that the movie is going to be based on the book ( or musical in this case) but that while the story line may be similar it will not be the same, it will be different so watch it for what it is.

I danced for 12 years before I had to make a choice. I was a good dancer( picking up chorus work in local productions as a child etc) but I wasn't super talented.I was however super talented as a show rider. I was told by my dance instructor and my trainer ( who i spent several months a year at his farm out of state) that I had to make a choice when I turned 14. That I needed to move up from dancing two hours four-five days a week and riding 3 hours a day 7 days a week.. and dedicate to one or the other. So I dearly love dancing and I love this movie and a lot of the other ballet and dance movies. I just chose to watch this movie for what it is, it is a great movie about raw emotion and human interaction. It is about the power of anticipation and heartbreak when you work really hard to get something you want and you just do not get it. I love the movie. I love the Broadway musical.

Not one of the better contemporary musicals, but worth seeing once.

[talisencrw · 7/10 · 10 April 2016]

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.

NOT "A Chorus Line"

[loulu2u · 1/10 · 14 June 2009]

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.