GeorgeMcIII
Joined Oct 2005
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews5
GeorgeMcIII's rating
I watched A Chorus Line with great anticipation, having loved the stage show. My mother took me to see the stage production when I was 17 years old and it opened my eyes and heart to the power of the stage.
The disappointment in this film came almost immediately. Although decades removed from when I first was introduced to A Chorus Line, I expected the story to stand the test of time because its themes are timeless and universal.
My first complaint is the casting. With a few exceptions, they could not have cast more uninteresting actors and dancers. One can only imagine the number of eager applicants who wanted roles in this film; how could they have chosen such unengaging ones? There were some outstanding dancers in the film, but the ones chosen for their names instead of their dancing skills stood out and cast a pall over the dance numbers.
When you are filming a movie about dancers and Broadway shows, the expectation for innovative choreography is understandably high, so seeing the uninspired choreography in this film was quite a disappointment. After years of dance classes in the 1970s, I understand the difference in choreography of the 80s and the choreography I'm accustomed to seeing now. However, thrilling choreography had already been created and nicely filmed for many movies; Sweet Charity and Cabaret come to mind.
One of the worst parts of this film is the cinematography. I admit to not knowing the backgrounds of the people who shot this film, but my take is that they did not understand - at all - how to shoot dance numbers. When you are shooting choreography, which is supposed to be the heart of this film, why so many head shots during the dancing? We want to see these bodies move. Since this picture followed so many wonderful musical films like the MGM musicals and the innovative work that was being done at that time turning Broadway shows into films, the cinematographer should have understood how to shoot the dance numbers to create excitement and clarity. The cinematography broke this film.
With the cinematography, the director made horrible choices as to angles and lighting. It ultimately falls on the shoulders of the director and this was a huge letdown.
I also did not like that the climax of the story, the heartbreak that leads to What I Did For Love, was switched from being focused on the sacrifice with which the dancers live every day to the love story involving Zach and Cassie. Not only did it take away from the heart of the story, it also failed because the chemistry between Alyson Reed, the actress in the Cassie role, and Michael Douglas was nonexistent.
The flashbacks to the prior relationship between Zach and Cassie were boring and uninspired. We didn't have the flashbacks in the stage production because they were unnecessary. The story line on stage allowed the audience to fill in the backstory with their imaginations. The director here left no room for viewers to explore and create with their imaginations. It's like you knew exactly what the director was thinking in every shot. Shooting a film like that is stifling.
Finally, the denouement of the final number, One, which the viewer is anticipating throughout the film, was an incredible disappointment. Although Zach, the director, has trimmed the cast to four women and four men, in the final number all the actors that have previously been cut now appear to end the film with One. The number comes with no explanation and seems out of place in the film. The wasted time on the Cassie/Zach flashbacks should have been spent setting up the final number. Instead, it appears they finished the script but before the film ended they wanted a big song-and-dance number so they inexplicably threw one in. The costumes look like they were left over from a high school production. The lighting was atrocious and the clumsy and amateurish cinematography left me stunned.
Quite honestly, I'm not sure why I gave this film two stars, which is probably one star too many. I suppose the love of A Chorus Line is implanted in my heart so deeply that I added a star to the lowest possible score because of nostalgia. I believe the themes of this story could stand the test of time and I would be interested to see what could be done with a current film version that overcomes the overwhelming and fatal mistakes of this film.
The disappointment in this film came almost immediately. Although decades removed from when I first was introduced to A Chorus Line, I expected the story to stand the test of time because its themes are timeless and universal.
My first complaint is the casting. With a few exceptions, they could not have cast more uninteresting actors and dancers. One can only imagine the number of eager applicants who wanted roles in this film; how could they have chosen such unengaging ones? There were some outstanding dancers in the film, but the ones chosen for their names instead of their dancing skills stood out and cast a pall over the dance numbers.
When you are filming a movie about dancers and Broadway shows, the expectation for innovative choreography is understandably high, so seeing the uninspired choreography in this film was quite a disappointment. After years of dance classes in the 1970s, I understand the difference in choreography of the 80s and the choreography I'm accustomed to seeing now. However, thrilling choreography had already been created and nicely filmed for many movies; Sweet Charity and Cabaret come to mind.
One of the worst parts of this film is the cinematography. I admit to not knowing the backgrounds of the people who shot this film, but my take is that they did not understand - at all - how to shoot dance numbers. When you are shooting choreography, which is supposed to be the heart of this film, why so many head shots during the dancing? We want to see these bodies move. Since this picture followed so many wonderful musical films like the MGM musicals and the innovative work that was being done at that time turning Broadway shows into films, the cinematographer should have understood how to shoot the dance numbers to create excitement and clarity. The cinematography broke this film.
With the cinematography, the director made horrible choices as to angles and lighting. It ultimately falls on the shoulders of the director and this was a huge letdown.
I also did not like that the climax of the story, the heartbreak that leads to What I Did For Love, was switched from being focused on the sacrifice with which the dancers live every day to the love story involving Zach and Cassie. Not only did it take away from the heart of the story, it also failed because the chemistry between Alyson Reed, the actress in the Cassie role, and Michael Douglas was nonexistent.
The flashbacks to the prior relationship between Zach and Cassie were boring and uninspired. We didn't have the flashbacks in the stage production because they were unnecessary. The story line on stage allowed the audience to fill in the backstory with their imaginations. The director here left no room for viewers to explore and create with their imaginations. It's like you knew exactly what the director was thinking in every shot. Shooting a film like that is stifling.
Finally, the denouement of the final number, One, which the viewer is anticipating throughout the film, was an incredible disappointment. Although Zach, the director, has trimmed the cast to four women and four men, in the final number all the actors that have previously been cut now appear to end the film with One. The number comes with no explanation and seems out of place in the film. The wasted time on the Cassie/Zach flashbacks should have been spent setting up the final number. Instead, it appears they finished the script but before the film ended they wanted a big song-and-dance number so they inexplicably threw one in. The costumes look like they were left over from a high school production. The lighting was atrocious and the clumsy and amateurish cinematography left me stunned.
Quite honestly, I'm not sure why I gave this film two stars, which is probably one star too many. I suppose the love of A Chorus Line is implanted in my heart so deeply that I added a star to the lowest possible score because of nostalgia. I believe the themes of this story could stand the test of time and I would be interested to see what could be done with a current film version that overcomes the overwhelming and fatal mistakes of this film.
One doesn't have to be a World War II historian to be aware of the horrible inaccuracies in this movie. Those who reference this movie as remotely accurate clearly paid no attention in history class.
For the rest of us, Prime Minister Churchill's apprehensions about D-Day were well documented; that is, documented as misgivings in its inception. However, by the time the day rolled around, he had long-since been on board, not only as a proponent, but as an architect of the offensive.
What the writer of this film has done is nothing short of an abomination. People who don't know the facts or young people who haven't yet learned them see films like this and think what they are seeing is reality. While writers cannot be responsible for the ignorance of viewers; when writing about real people and real events, they do bear some responsibility to at least walk hand-in-hand with truth.
The only question I have about this film is in wondering how on earth it ever got made.
While most of the actors give spirited performances, they cannot redeem this awful film. I cannot possibly recommend this movie for any purpose other than a wonderful example to writers, producers and directors on what not to do when making a movie. This movie represents everything that is wrong in filmmaking.
For the rest of us, Prime Minister Churchill's apprehensions about D-Day were well documented; that is, documented as misgivings in its inception. However, by the time the day rolled around, he had long-since been on board, not only as a proponent, but as an architect of the offensive.
What the writer of this film has done is nothing short of an abomination. People who don't know the facts or young people who haven't yet learned them see films like this and think what they are seeing is reality. While writers cannot be responsible for the ignorance of viewers; when writing about real people and real events, they do bear some responsibility to at least walk hand-in-hand with truth.
The only question I have about this film is in wondering how on earth it ever got made.
While most of the actors give spirited performances, they cannot redeem this awful film. I cannot possibly recommend this movie for any purpose other than a wonderful example to writers, producers and directors on what not to do when making a movie. This movie represents everything that is wrong in filmmaking.
Just Before I Go is one of the silliest, pointless films I have ever watched.
There was one particular scene, where the character Greta is talking to the character Ted during what was supposed to be an intense, high-drama scene. The syrupy, ridiculous and silly words that come out of Greta's mouth were so inappropriate for the scene that I was instantly embarrassed for her that she had to say them, and I alternated between being embarrassed for Courtney Cox to being angered at Cox that after seeing that scene so many times during the performance, dailies and screenings she said to herself, "Yeah, that's good" and included it in the film.
The lines that were meant to be jokes missed their marks by a long shot, with some even being insulting, like a running gag about someone becoming a "retard." Sure, a minor character does pop his head up and says he finds that word offensive – ya think? – but that hardly makes it OK for the use of the word and the way it is used. And to be sure, I am not someone who is caught up in political correctness; quite the opposite.
I feel the worst for Olivia Thirlby, who is a classically trained actor, having trained extensively in classical Shakespearian acting in New York at the American Globe Theatre, and in London at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art. Why on earth would she accept a role like this?
If this is the best work Courtney Cox can do as a director, she needs to go back to acting and leave directing to professionals who know what they are doing.
There is a reason this film grossed only $8,129 for its US opening weekend. Heck, you could put your home movies on a few screens around the country and gross more than $8,129.
This movie is terrible.
There was one particular scene, where the character Greta is talking to the character Ted during what was supposed to be an intense, high-drama scene. The syrupy, ridiculous and silly words that come out of Greta's mouth were so inappropriate for the scene that I was instantly embarrassed for her that she had to say them, and I alternated between being embarrassed for Courtney Cox to being angered at Cox that after seeing that scene so many times during the performance, dailies and screenings she said to herself, "Yeah, that's good" and included it in the film.
The lines that were meant to be jokes missed their marks by a long shot, with some even being insulting, like a running gag about someone becoming a "retard." Sure, a minor character does pop his head up and says he finds that word offensive – ya think? – but that hardly makes it OK for the use of the word and the way it is used. And to be sure, I am not someone who is caught up in political correctness; quite the opposite.
I feel the worst for Olivia Thirlby, who is a classically trained actor, having trained extensively in classical Shakespearian acting in New York at the American Globe Theatre, and in London at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art. Why on earth would she accept a role like this?
If this is the best work Courtney Cox can do as a director, she needs to go back to acting and leave directing to professionals who know what they are doing.
There is a reason this film grossed only $8,129 for its US opening weekend. Heck, you could put your home movies on a few screens around the country and gross more than $8,129.
This movie is terrible.