CHORUS LINE movie- Page 2

[CJR]

Posted: 2/17/04 at 11:31pm

In the movie, they focused more on Zach and Cassie's relationship than the struggle of the dancers and the audition process itself. That, afterall, is what ACL is all about.

[seabyrd]

Posted: 2/17/04 at 11:46pm

What was wrong with "A Chorus Line" movie: #1 - you never see a complete dance OR a complete dancer's body dancing! An arm here, a leg there, a closeup of a face, a wrist, a shoulder. I saw the original on Bway THREE times and loved it. I recently ordered the DVD to add to my collection- watched it, and promptly threw it in the wastebasket. For real! Why would someone who has never directed a musical, Sir Dickie Attenborough, be hired to bring such a milestone musical to the screen? It's beyond me.

[Dollypop]

Posted: 2/18/04 at 8:31am

People, people, people....

If you would only stop going to movies your lives will be so much happier.

How can the movie version of A CHORUS LINE be considered the worst movie ever made? There's a certain film starring That Streisand Woman which is the most foul, fetid and disgusting thing ever caught on celluloid.

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 2/18/04 at 9:02am

A sure sign the film was doomed when it was announced that its director "had never directed a musical before" (See the John Houston ANNIE for a similar heavy-handedness).

The only two exceptions are William Wyler's FUNNY GIRL and George Cukor's A STAR IS BORN.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 2/18/04 at 10:00am

This thread cracks me up. Everyone sounds so shocked and surprised that the film is not as good as the original. First, rarely is the film version of a musical ever as good as the original (especially since the early 60s). The fact that it was even made was a miracle (how many stage musicals made it to the big screen in the 80s? 2?). And when a stage musical does transfer to the screen, how often does it resemble the original version? The fact that the film version of A Chorus Line is different from and inferior to the stage production should have been expected. Out of all the stage-to-screen transfers, how many can you name that are as good or better than the original? The only one I can think of is The Sound of Music.

[BillyLawlor]

Posted: 2/18/04 at 10:05am

I'd add Chicago to that list. I enjoy the movie more then the show, to be honest with you.

Anyway, like Mister Matt said, movie musicals are very rarely as good as the shows themselves. Theater in itself is a very different experience live. Don't expect too much from the older adaptations.

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 2/18/04 at 4:06pm

I have 2 words with regards to "A Chorus Line" the movie: total garbage. What was with Alyson Reeds unflattering hairstyle anyway?

[Unknown User]

Posted: 2/18/04 at 4:37pm

As the A-number-1 fan of ACL when it first ran in 1975 and having seen it 7 times -- remarkable for someone who does not live in NYC, I waited for the film version like little Johnny waits for Christmas -- only to find a lump of coal in my stocking -- at least I think it was coal.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 2/18/04 at 4:55pm

I actually kind of liked the movie of "Hair" better than the show. Also, the film of "Cabaret" (no, I didn't see the Mendes production).

[rlbgbc]

Posted: 2/18/04 at 5:08pm

I'm really feeling my age, reading this thread. It's unfathomable to me that there's ANYONE out there that hasn't seen A CHORUS LINE on stage. Do other posters of my ilk remember when A CHORUS LINE was at The Shubert for years and years and years? It was almost like a touchstone on Broadway. When it finally closed, I remember it being eerie to walk down Shubert Alley and NOT see those mirrored placards for the show. It was like something was wrong with the world -- where did ACL go????

Time marches on.

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 2/18/04 at 5:19pm

It seems like yesterday that A Chorus Line was still playing. How time flies. A good friend of mine attended the final performance because he was dating someone in the cast (lucky for him). To think at one time this was the longest running show on Broadway!!

[sabrelady]

Posted: 2/18/04 at 6:20pm

Remember back when this was 1st bought as a property? John Travolta was hot then & they had bought the show as a vehicle for him without realizing that the male lead (zach) doesn't dance! Its an ensemble piece & stars of the era don't like just being one of a bunch of people. I always credited Micheal Douglas for doing it and actually insisting on being treated as part of an ensemble. ( PS I did briefly meet him & he is a pretty laid back guy)

[nyctopone]

Posted: 2/18/04 at 7:02pm

"Out of all the stage-to-screen transfers, how many can you name that are as good or better than the original? The only one I can think of is The Sound of Music."

Well I can think of a couple:

Oliver - I think the film adaptation is way better than the stage show. The characters are more the way Dickens wrote them. Also the way they opened up the film while keeping most of the score intact is a lesson in how a movie musical should be done.

Grease - I don't know why, but I have never liked the stage show at all, however I love the film.

Cabaret - A very different film than stage show but equally as good for different reasons.

1776 and The Music Man - They basically recreated what was onstage to film. Both are excellent.

[beacon1]

Posted: 2/18/04 at 9:59pm

I thought 1776 was fabulous!