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.

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

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.

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.