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.

I do not think that this film is as bad as some of the reviewers on this site would have us believe! Considering that the film is more than thirty years old, the visual quality and choreography has 'held up' well despite the passage of time and I cared about the characters. Considering that most of the action takes place within a single location (the theatre), the director did well at keeping the pace of the film dynamic and the cast was very talented (they could sing, dance and act). I have seen worse, enjoyed the film as a piece of light entertainment and would recommend this movie.

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.

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.