A Chorus Line

1985 "One singular sensation!"
6.2| 1h57m| PG-13| en| More Info
Released: 10 December 1985 Released
Producted By: Columbia Pictures
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

A group of dancers congregate on the stage of a Broadway theatre to audition for a new musical production directed by Zach. After the initial eliminations, seventeen hopefuls remain, among them Cassie, who once had a tempestuous romantic relationship with Zach. She is desperate enough for work to humble herself and audition for him; whether he's willing to let professionalism overcome his personal feelings about their past remains to be seen.

... View More
Stream Online

Stream with MGM

Director

Producted By

Columbia Pictures

Trailers & Images

Reviews

P Carl this movie is a movie that absolutely everybody has heard of, and it is widely known that this movie is widely viewed in a favorable light.... is this some elaborate cosmic practical joke? this is one of the worst movies ever made. it is terrible. make you angry at your children and dog, terrible. Awful, terrible, horrible.I cannot express clearly enough the awfulness of this movie. ---- without spoiling the "plot" this movie is about actors acting that they are whining about how bone-wrackingly awful acting is to poor under-appreciated downtrodden actors ---- and they do a terrible job, over-acting their miserable poorly written parts. oh, and there is a song.
Andreapworth 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.
James Hitchcock 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
edmichaelsentertainment If anyone has seen the stage version they know this the worst rendition of a Broadway show ever done. They changed songs (example Richie's Give Me the Ball leading to S**t Richie)cut some and took out some of the best dialog lines in the show and worst of all Cassie sings What I Did for Love for her love of Zach when Diana is supposed to sing it for the love of dancing. They only good thing about this movie is the dancing. Other than it's horrible. The actors are the worst actors and singers ever chosen for a movie. They were only chosen for their ability to dance so I guess if you have no care for the Broadway stage it doesn't matter. And honestly besides Michael Douglas,who are these people?