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!

(*Most demented movie-quote imaginable*) - "All I know how to do is point my toes and leap!".... (Spare me!) Believe me - This 1985 "audition" movie was truly idiotic. Its whole premise concerned a bunch of absolutely desperate hopefuls who were all auditioning for (*and I quote from movie*) "a crummy chorus line job".Until seeing "A Chorus Line" - I had never realized just how irrationally emotional dancers really were. I mean, getting this "crummy chorus line job", literally, brought a good number of them to tears.And, on top of that - They were all so anxious about getting this "crummy chorus line job" that they willingly subjected themselves to a totally demented "soul bearing" interrogation from a smug, tyrannical choreographer named Zach in order to land this nothing-of-a-position..... (Sheesh!) The last straw that broke this musical's back, for me, was the introduction of the revolting "Cassie" character into the story. Her utter desperation to land this "crummy chorus line job" was absolutely sickening beyond belief.

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

Sorry, but I find it a little hard to believe that Richard Attenborough directed this film. This is the same director who directed the wonderful underrated Cry Freedom, the extraordinarily touching Shadowlands and the magnificent Gandhi. What happened? Now I am not saying this is the worst musical ever made, that dishonour for me goes to The Wiz(I haven't yet seen Mame but I've heard it's worse), though that did have moments, but as an adaptation of a stage musical this is the most disappointing one I have seen, considering how superb the stage musical is.A Chorus Line does have its good moments though. The cinematography, costumes and sets are nice to look at, the songs and score are great, Michael Douglas is good as the show's producer and Alyson Reed is touching as Cassie.However, the story loses its dynamic intensity and captivity with the flashbacks and becomes disjointed as a consequence. The dialogue that remains is largely uneven and no longer humorous or touching, while the choreography is lacking as a consequence of being changed- why change the original choreography when it was so good? Attenborough's direction isn't great either, I love Attenborough as a director, but his heart didn't seem to be in it here. And personally I didn't like Audrey Landers, she was pretty yes but her dancing and such left you feeling someone else could have done the role and better. Finally, the pacing is very uneven. Crucial parts are rushed while the not-so-essential parts drag.Overall, has its moments but a huge disappointment. 4/10 Bethany Cox