Showgirls

I read through a few of these reviews and the general analysis seemed to be that this movie sucks more than the lead character does in the back room of the Cheetah Club. Well, I guess if you take it at face value, it does.

However, it's not meant to be taken that way (internally, with a glass of water?), and it's a shame that so many people did. Really, 'Showgirls' is a campy, funny movie. It's a riot. And it's supposed to be.

Elizabeth Berkley, in the lead role, plays her part like an actress on one of those day-time soaps - which is probably exactly what Verhoeven wanted. She does everything dramatically. She sits down, dramatically; she takes off her jacket, dramatically; and if you watch closely enough you'll even see her eating fries dramatically.

Gina Gershon as femme fatale/lead dancer Cristal gives the best performance of the film. She obviously is in sync with the director and has a lot of fun with the part, and if you only watch it for one reason, watch it for her. Because, in the words of L'Oreal, she's worth it. She's a great talent and it's a shame she's not recognised more widely.

Would I recommend it? I don't know. It depends on your taste. If you're looking for a drama, go elsewhere. If you're looking for a quirky, funny movie, and you don't mind lots of naked ladies running around all over the place (yes, even if you're female - I am, and I liked it), go rent it. It might surprise you.

Back in 1995 I felt like it was one of the best films I have ever watched, it helped to embrace that what people don't wish to see, there's more life to this film than films like Terminator, ironically so cause it portrays the fakeness of people and the whole showbiz in the film, that contrast of revealing the truth in a fake world is what I believe draws people subconsciously to this film, it's a breath of fresh air.

This is more like an art film that demands the audience to think for themselves by being removed from the familiar archetypes or messages, it removes the anchor for anyone looking to relate to anyone in the fim at a surface level, the same is true about Bunuel or Fellini films, this film doesn't use neorealism to portray the world of the film, it uses the aesthetics of the American cinema, a language under the language, it's not a genre film to thrill in a basic commercial way like Robocop, Basic Instinct or Flashdance, it offers questions and ambiguity, as a little example, what does it suggests with a scene like Nomi and Crystal kissing at the end? What should we feel? For me it demonstrates glimpses of how much different their lives could be, how much there's more to these characters who long for something else, yet everyone seems to show glimpses of how deceptive can be at the same time, people are an enigma here, unaware of their own identity, and lost innocence, nothing is what seems to be, it is a facade that's breaking apart through Verhoeven's lens, using the naked bodies and Goddess show to portray the surface hiding their authentic heart and soul. Nomi's rebellious nature in a sense represents an outsider's look into this world that refuses to be seduced by it, yet it is at one point. There is also a cartoony playfulness and beauty in the way it is made, mainly visually, that appeals to the senses as well, but for me that style represents the seductiveness of this world that Nomi enters.

Another aspect I appreciate about it is how innocently and openly it shows nudity and sex, it shatters our inhibitions. The film goes against expectations often, it subverts the conventions, and that always is bound to be embraced more later in time, cause the conventions have changed, so in a later time the film has lost its potency to challenge our attachments to conventions, once it reaches the safe zone when such conventions/standards being gone years later, the film gets embraced, however its pure function as a medium made for a particular time to shock or make us uncomfortable is no longer there. The same is true for anything that flopped but got embraced much later, Citizen Kane, Wizard Of Oz, Vertigo, Blade Runner, Alexander, Fight Club, etc, none of these films serve the same function years later for the human collective.

Yes Showgirls seemed to be hated by some people at the time, the truth is the more we hate something the more it reveals some aspect of us that we can't stand, it's all a projection, anything that triggers hightened emotions. Some of the most despised art shows me more accurately the greater picture of our collective conscousness, or perhaps subconscious. Often the hated movies reveal the truth of how much people lack the surrender or openness to the unknown, the unexpected, the breaking of their beliefs or standards, the change, etc. It challenges the ego, and the willingness to look into our own shadow side, hence why I love to watch more often things that most people hate, there's always something that shows more originality or individuality of perception than in films that are largely embraced.

This film in particular was daring, going narrativelly forward in unpredictable ways, even though the plot seemed basic.

How I wish I could write this review anonymously. No one should publicly admit to liking Showgirls. There's very little to like about it. Yet I still do. And, looking at some of the other comments on here, I'm not the only one (perhaps there's a secret 'Fight Club-like' organisation out there somewhere for people like us?).

It's about a young woman who drifts into Las Vegas with dreams of being a dancer. She ends up being a stripper. However, her fortunes don't stay that way for long, as she's offered a role in a top Vegas casino's show... which involves taking her clothes off.

In case you've never heard of this film, it does involve a lot of female nudity. Now, this naturally attracted a lot of criticism of the film being sexist. And, in short, it is. However, isn't that the point? We're getting a look into an industry (whether it be the stripping industry, the showgirl industry, or even the film industry) which is heavily male-dominated. It's run by rich middle-aged men who get to decide which young 18-21 year old females get the parts. Of course there's going to be a heavy element of sexism and quite a fair share of sleaze involved.

I won't try to defend Showgirls and say things like 'the nudity empowers the women,' because that would probably be untrue (and rather pretentious). But I will say that the nudity is at least valid. Making a film without nudity about a subject involving strippers and erotic dancers would be like making a film about the Second World War without soldiers.

It's all pretty cheesy stuff. I don't know whether that was the film-makers' intentions when they made it, but that's the end result. Everything is very dramatic. The lead characters dances overly-dramatically, walks overly-dramatically and, if you look closely, even eats a hamburger overly-dramatically. It's kind of like the acting quality you'd expect from an afternoon soap (but with more nudity, obviously).

However, if there's one redeeming feature that can genuinely be talked about, it's Gina Gershon, who plays the femme fatale 'Cristal Connors.' She seems to revel in flitting between evil and seductively charming and is a joy to watch when it comes to baddies.

I don't think anyone should recommend Showgirls to anyone, without knowing what sort of films they're into. You'll either love it or throw a brick at the TV. Best to just tell people you hate it until you meet up with them in some underground car park with the rest of the Showgirls fans. Remember, the first rule about liking Showgirls is that you DO NOT admit to liking Showgirls.

This is expertly made trash, with over the top characters and scenes that don't even have a toe in reality. There's loads of nudity and everything is amped up to 11. That said, it was intended to be sexy and adult and daring but it falls flat on its face. BUT the way it falls flat makes it something to see.

I've waited years to write a review of this train wreck meets a dumpster fire of a film and, having just rewatched it for the 6th or 7th time, I'm finally ready.

There is so much glorious awfulness in this film it's difficult to know where to start. Elizabeth Berkley is way out of her depth playing the lead. She seems to be trying really hard, but just doesn't have the necessary acting chops to pull it off. She is playing it straight but doesn't realize it needed to be performed with an excess of arch campiness. Gina Gershon, who is way better than this material, said in an interview that when she finally realized that the film couldn't be taken seriously (apparently the director didn't convey that too well - more on him later), she got on board and provided the over-the-top archness required, somewhere around Joan Collins level. Kyle Maclachlan looks simply embarrassed by the whole affair; more power to him. The other actors are saddled with paper thin, one note, underwritten characters and deliver appropriate performances for them.

Writer Joe Eszterhas has turned out a script that seems to have been written by a 15 year-old, brain damaged and oversexed boy who is still a virgin. His dialog is ridiculous in the extreme, as if he had no idea how real people might speak to, or behave around, each other. It's an almost surreal experience to hear some of the tone-deaf exchanges in the movie. Joe apparently learned nothing between penning Flashdance and this film. At least Flashdance had some good music in it; this flick just has mortifying, forgettable dance numbers.

Director Paul Verhoeven, who directed some of my favorite films including RoboCop and Total Recall, bungles this film most delightfully. He seems more interested in nipples, and insuring the female cast members show them at all times, than in getting a decent performance from anyone. Those nipples get ice, champagne, sequins and lipstick on them. They are ready to go out and partay! Maybe if Paul could have gotten all the actors on the same page with their performances by explaining the satirical tone of the movie (if indeed that really was the aim of the script - I have my doubts), this might have been a way funnier, though not as deliciously inept and awful, cinematic exercise.

So why can't I go more than a few years without watching it again and again?