A Chorus Line (1985)

Simply Perfect

Memorable, crazy movie

Admirable film.

Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

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!

Musical follows the dreams and ambitions of a group of men and women auditioning for a Broadway musical. It's all overseen by Zach (Michael Douglas) the director of the musical.The play opened in the mid 1970s on Broadway and it was an immediate hit. It broke new ground in how musicals were staged, dealt with subject matter that was still pretty taboo (being gay) and had pretty frank dialogue and situations. It also had a hit song--"What I Did for Love". Naturally the Hollywood version managed to trash it thoroughly. They tried to "improve" it and ended up insulting fans of the show and trivializing the musical completely. For starters the people they picked to play the line were--at best--mediocre dancers and singers. I saw the show multiple times on stage. ANY of those productions had better singers and dancers. None of them were particularly good actors either. The number "I Can Do That" was badly sung, danced and staged. Also "What I Did for Love" (which was about their love for dancing and signing) was turned into just a love song! Naturally they also added new songs which were boring and added nothing to the plot. One of the few bright spots was Douglas who was pretty good in his role. Also the finale which REALLY worked on a big movie screen was great but it was way too little and way too late. And who the hell thought Sir Richard Attenborough was the perfect choice for a director? The man has made some great films but never did a musical and (pretty obviously) didn't have a clue on how to stage or shoot the songs and dances. The direction here was all over the place.If you've never seen this on stage you might like this. However if you have you'll probably hate this. A 1 all the way. Try to see it on stage.

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...

I first saw the live musical at the Denver Center For The Performing Arts and it was absolutely mind-blowing, Stunning and had such fantastic continuity of plot and dialogue that I liked it much more than most musicals that I have seen on the stage. The interesting thing is that you NEVER got to see Zach's face. He was always in the dark but his presence was powerful and guided the direction of entire production. Whe I heard they were making a movie from it, I waited with bated breath, but when I watched the movie version I was so bummed-out disappointed that I felt I was cheated. The movie lacks the captivating mood set in the live production and it never allows you to be completely in close touch with every character. Personally, I would like to see the live version again and if that should ever be revived, I would wholeheartedly recommend that you go out of your way to see it. It will be one of the most memorable experiences you will enjoy.