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.

Is it a satire of bad film making? Is it a knowing take on Showbiz sleaze ? Or was it a totally sincere project, and thus in Ed Wood territory for it's compleat terrible hilarity, as cliches pile upon cliches upon horrible acting, set amongst the gaudiest, most resplendently hideous set design in film history ? Some say it MUST be satire, as NO-ONE makes films this bad, this obviously bad, with this much money behind them, in such a garish, tacky way...and expects to be taken seriously. Except for the man responsible for "Starship Troopers", that is...

Whatever it is, this thing is genius, that's all I can say.

There are lots of reasons, but the one that most strikes me in the funny bone is it's depiction of strippers. I, for one, have had to endure far, far too many "Dancers" who take themselves utterly seriously, for sex and for other reasons, for this to be anything other than roll-on-the-floor funny. And that is only one small level of the humor contained herein. If this film is self-deprecating satire, and I suspect that it is, than that is enough right there to earn it a place in MY "Desert Isle Five." If not, than that makes it even better !

Just watch it with your own tongue firmly planted in cheek, and it starts to make sense...

Paul Verhoeven's "Showgirls" is the last great exploitation film. Sure there's T&A, but big deal, the main attraction here is watching the over-the-top characters be sleazy and screw each other over for their own general good, and for the actor's over-the-top performances, especially that of Elizabeth Berkley. The Stardust entertainment guy looks like the singer of The Undertones, I thought that was pretty cool. But seriously this film is non-stop fun, watching the actors obviously having a good time is a blast!

I thought this film was not bad actually, and saw it as a voyage though bitchy sleazy Las Vegas showlife. Everyone goes on about the wildly exaggerated sex by the leading girl, but might that not be her style as a wannabe Vegas showqueen.

I think compared to a lot of films that come out that deserve a one star rating this doesn't deserve one, I found it watchable and I think there's been a kind of herd effect to say it's trash. It's just *about* trash.

So right on Tarantino for coming out alone in praising it I say.

No, it isn't a great, or terribly good, movie. I've certainly seen worse. And it is certainly too bad that this seemed to ruin Elizabeth Berkley's career. I didn't find her acting to be all that bad. I think that she was a victim to her role. She might not have had the star power or charisma to overcome a bad role, but I think she played it exactly the way Verhoeven wanted. Not sure that the nudity was a problem either, as I don't recall 1995 being all that puritanical. The rest of the acting was OK, too. I've never been a fan of Kyle MacLachland, but his skeevy smarminess was well-suited to his character. Gina Gershon seemed to have great fun chewing the scenery. No, the problem with the film was that every character was intensely dislikeable. (With the exception of Gina Rivera's Molly character) The exposition of Nomi's problems came way toward the end of the movie, when it was really too late to give her a break for all of her previous behavior. I think most of the blame for this being a poorer movie than it needed to be was Eszterhas's.