Best movie of this year hands down!

It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

There are better movies of two hours length. I loved the actress'performance.

The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

Based on the 1975 play of the same name which was then the longest running Broadway show in history but has since fallen into a distant sixth place, this is a flat, lifeless musical. Richard Attenborough, my favourite director of all time, does the best that he can and there are some beautiful shots but the problem is with the material. I've no idea if it worked better on stage but it does not work on film at all. It's deathly dull. The characters don't seem like real people. I don't know too much about Broadway but, based on this, you would think that having a sob story was the main requirement for being in a chorus line. However, the fact that all the characters have problems would not itself be a problem if they weren't simply caricatures and said problems weren't uninteresting and clichéd. The dancing is wonderful and the singing is generally very good but the songs are profoundly unmemorable except for "Nothing" and that it is merely the best of a bad lot. I much preferred "The Simpsons"' Hallowe'en version of "One", frankly. I've always thought that a film that looks good but has a poor script isn't worth much and this is a textbook example of that.This is a very atypical Attenborough film in several respects: it is not based on actual events (his second of only three), it is not in any way epic (or good) and does not feature any of his regular stock company of actors. Of the nine films that he directed from 1969 to 1993, it is one of only two in which his brother-in-law Gerald Sim does not appear, the other being "Magic". Sim was probably glad to have missed this one, though it's hard to see where he would have fit into the film anyway! I had such hopes for this film since Attenborough's thought-provoking directorial debut "Oh! What a Lovely War" is my favourite musical film (other than "The Muppets Take Manhattan") but it was a major disappointment. The only thought that this film provoked in me was, "Christ, not another sob story." While the characters are uninteresting, there is some good acting in the film, particularly from Michael Douglas as the musical's choreographer Zach, Alyson Reed as his ex-girlfriend Cassie (though she is no way near as good a singer as she is an actress, let alone a dancer), Vicki Frederick as Sheila Bryant (who comes closest to seeming like a real person at one point) and Yamil Borges as Diana Morales. I'll be perfectly honest and say that the only actor in the film not named Michael Douglas that I had as much as heard of was future "Star Trek: Voyager" star Roxann Dawson, who does not have a single line and can be seen in no more than two or three shots. Lea Thompson was offered the role of Kristine Evelyn-DeLuca but turned it down to star in "Back to the Future". She made the right decision. Madonna auditioned for a role but Attenborough did not cast her. So did he.Overall, this is an extremely dull film but a few instances of good acting makes it more bearable than it would have been otherwise. Three other films directed by Attenborough ("A Bridge Too Far", "Shadowlands" and "Oh! What a Lovely War") are in my Top 30, with the first of those being No. 15. This will hopefully give a good indication of how disappointed I was with this film.

A director (Michael Douglas) is casting dancers for a production. Large numbers of hopefuls audition, hoping to be selected. Throughout the day, more and more people are eliminated, and the competition gets harder. Eventually, approximately a dozen dancers must compete 'A Chorus Line' is an enjoyable musical which being twenty five years old remains a product of it's time. Richard Attenborough was a surprising choice to direct this 'one'(if you'll pardon the pun!) 'A Chorus Line' was a film i watched as a youngster on VHS and later Television in a horribly pan and scanned version any DVD in it's Original Aspect Ratio of this film is a revelation as you can clearly see all of the dancers as intended as opposed to a mere quarter.

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?

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.