What Don't You Like About The 'A Chorus Line' Movie?- Page 2

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 7/25/06 at 11:37am

I am not ripping the movie

All I am saying is it was not as good as it could have been. Glad you enjoyed it though

[Christoph]

Posted: 7/25/06 at 11:54am

EponineAmneris:

No one is condemning you for enjoying the film. Personally, I am happy that you liked it. I happened to like the film version of Annie that so many here despise (although I never saw the stage version until Nell Carter brought it around in the poorly received revival). It is all relative. Much like you are well within your rights to declare why you really enjoyed the movie, others are within their rights to indicate why the movie did not work for them. Please don't take any of the criticisms toward the film as slights on your taste, as on the whole I don't believe that anyone means it in that regard. It is not a personal attack on anyone, just different points-of-view.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 7/25/06 at 11:58am

i really hated the fact that it sucked as bad as it did. that's pretty much my only problem with it, the suckage.

[Danielm]

Posted: 7/25/06 at 12:05pm

1. They put too much focus on the Cassie-Zach love story including giving Cassie "What I Did For Love" to sing which completely changes the meaning of the song from what the dancers face to feed the love of their craft to what Cassie will do to get Zach back.

2. The replacement songs are always inferior to the original (some of which weren't that great in the first place).

3. The choreography is dreadful--calling to mind the "Solid Gold" dancers (Who, yes, were a lot of fun--but totally campy and completely wrong for the Broadway stage).

4. After Paul's long emotional speech Michael Douglas says with failed seriousness, "Get a hat."

5. The casting of Michael Douglas--which I'm sure seemed like a coup at the time is distracting--as is the casting of the Landers girl.

6. Despite some good people in the cast the acting is all around bad. It's all too "nice".

7. The director had no idea what the show was about so he tried to turn it into a love story. Cassie is given too much weight and all the other characters too little. We get almost nothing of the majority of the dancers and way, way too much of our annoying Cassie.

Don't kid yourselves--maybe you like it but it's still a bad movie. It deserves its bad reputation.

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 7/25/06 at 12:11pm

If you would all take a step back from the masterpiece that is the stage show and watch the movie knowing it is a DIFFERENT version of the story, you'd see it in a whole new light.

I'm not one that insists that a movie verison be just like the show. In fact, most of my least favorite musicals are ones that do that. I hate MY FAIR LADY for its lack of cinematic flair, and think BYE BYE BIRDIE is far better as a film than a show. So too, THE SOUND OF MUSIC and others, that varied from their stage origins. A movie is a movie, and it shouldn't just be the stage show on film; but, when you take a piece like A CHORUS LINE, and completely diviate from its basic plot, for one that is utterly boring, then I have problems. I hate the film, because I don't care about these people. In fact, I dislike most of them, particularly the 2 leading characters. On stage, I cared and I was pulling for them. I got none of that from the film. I just wanted them all to go away. But, I would never suggest that someone else shouldn't like it, just that I didn't.

[WickedGeek28]

Posted: 7/25/06 at 12:17pm

I agree about the Cabaret aside, C is for Company. They took the elements of the show, but added a new layer to the piece. This is a primary example of a movie actually comlimenting, or enhancing, a stage musical.

[ashley0139]

Posted: 7/25/06 at 12:17pm

If you would all take a step back from the masterpiece that is the stage show and watch the movie knowing it is a DIFFERENT version of the story, you'd see it in a whole new light.

This is what I tried to do. I had/have never seen the stage show. And I really wanted to like it. I just couldn't. I didn't care about any of the characters. But the people who dislike it aren't only the ones that saw the original show. But it's good you like it.

[NBC]

Posted: 7/25/06 at 2:39pm

I just wish that some of the gypsies that played the cut dancers in the beginning and/or the multitudes of "One" dancers at the end were in principal roles...

[WonderBoy]

Posted: 7/25/06 at 2:43pm

Let's face it, the best thing about this horrid film is the presence of some of the Broadway performers, notably Vicki Frederick!

[C is for Company]

Posted: 7/25/06 at 2:48pm

Hell yes, she is the best part. "Can the adults please smoke?"

This thread isn't some horrible travesty. It just started because someone who saw it and never saw it staged wanted to know why people find it bad. I think we sufficiently listed what the problems were without pouring too much hatred into it. Sorry if you find it negative, but you've been around since May 25th come on!

Updated On: 7/25/06 at 02:48 PM

[BwayLeadman]

Posted: 7/25/06 at 2:53pm

Cassie's flashback scene. Her hair piece was a TRAGEDY!!!
LMAO

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 7/25/06 at 3:00pm

I really liked the Shelia charater. The part at the end where he calls out her name and you can see her face light up...and then...yeah. That was heartbreaking.

I think a lot of the acting was too "stagy" for film. It should have been more realistic.

Also, what theater was that? Was that the Majestic? If so, why would they not use the Shubert where it played it's run?

[ggersten]

Posted: 7/25/06 at 3:35pm

Attenborough ended up being a wrong choice. But, you never know. Robert Wise directed dramas before West Side Story. And even if you say Jerome Robbins handled the musical numbers, Wise went on to direct Sound of Music. I don't think Carol Reed had directed any musical before Oliver! unless it was decades earlier. Both of those directors opened up the musical on the big screen.
The problem with ACL is that it didn't need to be opened up. It was meant to be a closed show. Still, I don't know how it would have worked if the movie were opened up by use of lashbacks" during the songs - sort of musical vignettes - for I Can Do That or At The Ballet. Hello12Hello13 might be a mess in that style..but who knows. Paul's monologue was incredibly powerful as a stand alone piece - just him on stage. Using a flashback to counterpoint his telling, imho, would have decreased its power. (I haven't seen the movie since it opened, so maybe some of this was done to poor effect).

If you're a slave to the stage show, you get The Producers. If you open it correctly, you can get Sound of Music or West Side Story. West Side Story, the movie, moved scenes around, gave an extra song to Riff, changed and expanded lyrics - and I've never heard any complaints about those changes (Rita Moreno and Natalie Wood were not happy about the dubbing - but that's a different issue).

ACL didn't need to be a stinker. It just turned out that way. And that is why I'm so hesitant about Dreamgirls, the movie.

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 7/25/06 at 3:37pm

Allyson Reed's horrible hair style.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 7/25/06 at 4:10pm

"Also, what theater was that? Was that the Majestic? If so, why would they not use the Shubert where it played it's run?"

It was filmed at The Mark Hellinger. They used it because it has one of the most beautiful interiors of the Broadway houses. They didn't use the Shubert because ACL was still playing on Broadway and it would have been impossible to do a show eight times a week and film at the same time.

[CJR]

Posted: 7/25/06 at 4:17pm

Alright. This is a horrible movie... a POOOOOOR representation of the show (if any representation at all).... but I do love it nonetheless.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 7/25/06 at 4:51pm

Oh okay. For some reason I thought they were using the Majestic cause I could have sworn I either saw the Marquee or it say "Majestic Stage Door" but who knows. It really is beautiful.

[saschasf]

Posted: 7/25/06 at 4:54pm

I have never seen the stage production, and saw the movie on tv one or two years ago. I knew/know very litte about the story, but just found it plain boring. I was thinking "this was THE musical of the 70's?" I had heard the critics, but have never held much stock in that, but it was just not well done. I do plan to see ACL here though, because even though the movie was way not good, I saw the potential for greatness on the stage. There also just seemed very little life in it.

[Jon]

Posted: 7/25/06 at 6:00pm

One example of the poor direction: During "I Can Do That", Mike never really DOES anything. Near the end he's supposed to be showing us what a great dancer he is, and instead, he's swinging from a rope, making goofy faces!

[Kringas]

Posted: 7/25/06 at 6:21pm

And doing a tap dance that's shot from the waist up.

I don't see how anyone can think this is complimenting the stage version. It's virtually nonsensical.

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/25/06 at 6:43pm

"Nonsensical - The Musical!"

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 7/25/06 at 7:00pm

"I have never seen the stage production, and saw the movie on tv one or two years ago. I knew/know very litte about the story, but just found it plain boring. I was thinking "this was THE musical of the 70's?" I had heard the critics, but have never held much stock in that, but it was just not well done. I do plan to see ACL here though, because even though the movie was way not good, I saw the potential for greatness on the stage. There also just seemed very little life in it."


That was the problem i had with the stage show, the night i saw it in New York, there was very little life in it...Thankfully have seen it since with a cast who wanted to be there..

But the first time around the longest and most boring night in theatre, all i can say was the movie made me want to see it again on stage.

[jam_man]

Posted: 7/25/06 at 8:35pm

Wasn't one of the supposed reasons that the film went south was because Attenborough didn't really let Michael Bennet in on the film? I remember hearing somewhere that after quite a few times of being overruled by Attenborough, Bennet left a sign on his door saying "Out to Lunch," and never came back.

Anyone hear that, too?

[overthemoon419]

Posted: 7/25/06 at 11:52pm

I must agree, regarding "What I Did for Love," it wasn't the fact that Cassie sang it that made it lackluster, but the fact that the entire meaning was changed that made it... awful.

"Let Me Dance for You" is just a waste of time.

I watched the movie because I adore Terrence Mann. The first time I saw it, I slept through every scene he wasn't in - and not intentionally. It was boring. I can't pinpoint exactly why, but it is, at least to me.

I would not have minded the casting of Michael Douglas if the Director had remained a mere voice in the theatre. All the cutaway b.s. was just that: b.s.

[Radioactiveduck]

Posted: 7/26/06 at 4:02am

Paul says that he changed his name because he didn't look Puerto Rican, but in the movie...HE DOES LOOK PUERTO RICAN.

The film was very 80's-ified. The show, while it has a 70's sound, is basically timeless.