Kattiera Nana I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Borserie it is finally so absorbing because it plays like a lyrical road odyssey that’s also a detective story.

Donald Seymour This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

Josephina Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

JohnHowardReid 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!

kz917-1 Why all the bad reviews? Is it dated? Yes. But the music, the dancing, the really skimpy costumes all makes it magical.I recently saw the documentary following the Broadway revival and felt the tug of nostalgia pulling to watch the original. I was watching mainly for the music and the dancing. They did not disappoint.Of course THEATRE is best live and in person - that goes without saying. But I enjoyed my viewing of A Chorus Line.

talisencrw For what it is--a slice-of-life of a group of people, trying to make the big-time and at least be able to say that they were on Broadway--it's a fine work. I admit I haven't seen the stage play--which many sources say is far superior to this filmic adaptation.I'm rather surprised that: a) Michael Douglas gets star status here, or is even involved. He doesn't dance here. The film would have worked so much better if it showed his character showing some dance moves and getting across to the dancers what he wanted. Both his character would have connected better with the dancers, and he would have connected better with filmgoers; and b) that Lord Richard Attenborough got involved with this: It's definitely not his forte or cup of tea. Perhaps he wanted to expand his directorial palette, or that some of his influences were masters of the genre, such as Lubitsch or Minnelli. Personally, I wish I knew, for he has done much better work in his career.Overall, not one of the better of contemporary (post-1970) musicals, but worth seeing once, if renting or seeing that it's coming on TV. Not a top purchase priority, unless you are a Douglas or Attenborough completest, and then prepare to be disappointed.

writers_reign Occasionally, it would appear, I actually do see the same movie as the majority of other posters. This is a case in point. Like many of those who have posted here I saw the stage version albeit in London rather than Broadway and it was light years ahead of this strangely insipid film. Like other posters I question the wisdom of engaging Richard Attenborough to direct a dynamic Broadway musical or engage Michael Douglas to personify what in the stage version was a disembodied voice. In the theatre the finale, 'One', staged if full costume, was a tour de force, because although we had seen fragments of rehearsal it still made an impact like a pile-driver whereas here it is merely a competent, well-drilled routine. There is perhaps some merit or at least interest in a movie musical in which the bulk of the score is performed almost in passing with a couple of solos just for show but overall we're talking major disappointment.