smatysia
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.
Eric Stevenson
Well, here it is everybody, I'm finally reviewing the highest grossing NC-17 rated movie ever made. Granted, it's still only 20 million dollars, in contrast to the highest grossing R-rated movie "The Passion Of the Christ", which made 370 million dollars. Let me talk about this for a moment. I honestly have no idea why the NC-17 rating even still exists, seeing as how it's practically never used and on the rare times it is used, no one goes to see it anyway. Besides, practically every NC-17 or X rated movie (including this one) has been released in an R-rated version. Back to the movie, as this film is really bad.There's this one scene where Nomi has sex with a guy named Zac. Kind of funny considering she also played the love interest of a guy named Zac on "Saved By The Bell". The movie goes on way too long, the dialogue is corny, and the characters are shallow. It's honestly quite boring, as it's nothing but a woman becoming a stripper and rising in the ranks as a dancer. I will at least give this film some credit as it honestly does earn its NC-17 rating. Still, it's better off being forgotten. *1/2
Fallen Eye
There's a point in this film, where it takes a sharp, serious and dark turn, out of damn near nowhere, and it's that moment in the movie that encapsulates just how unfocused Showgirls is.If I was to take this movie seriously, it would be a 3.5/10. If I weren't to take it seriously, then it would be 6/10. The sexiness and erotica points of the film were done relatively well, however, the story, the acting and over acting, the pace and those hilariously ridiculous seizure fests they tried to pass off as dancing or some kind of choreography were just too shockingly laughable.Showgirls is sexy, especially Elizabeth Berkley, and is as progressive as any ordinary film tends and needs to be without being static, however, it ran longer than it had to, and that just stretched an already poorly handled story too thin. Its structure and pace doesn't allow one to feel the necessary emotions of sympathy, however parts like what happens in the beginning of the movie give it some edge. I'll meet Showgirls halfway and give it 5/10.
Modern Monsters
The fact that Showgirls is back in theaters speaks volumes about reevaluation, and as far as prep talks go it says a lot about media hype and the burning of idols, too. That movie would be a cautionary tale if anything of the sort still existed; as such, it nevertheless takes part in a conversation about Short Attention Span Disorder that no one is able to follow, and that's the irony of it.Irony is not exactly foreign to Paul Verhoeven, as demonstrated by Robocop, Starship Troopers (is it the best bad movie ever, or is it the worst good movie, the jury will ever be out) or even Basic Instinct. The man is one of the few European directors to have left his mark on Hollywood at the end of the 20th century, directing big budgets blockbusters which were hot topics at the time, mainly for their violence but also for their sexuality (remember that particular piece of the True Crotch?) But, but, violence is good, violence is fun, and sex is not. Sex is evil, well, women sex is. The female sex in general. Hoes and witches, all of'em, ya know.By switching focus from violence to sex, Verhoeven spoke the unspeakable and committed a cardinal sin. Backlash was swift, the same ones who enjoyed Total Recall (Violence + Comedy) and Basic Instinct (Violence + Sex) rejecting with puritan horror Showgirls (Sex + Comedy). What the hell was he thinking, desecrating Las Vegas, the Wedding Meccah? Focussing on strip clubs and tacky shows, when there is so much to gamble about, what Ocean's Eleven, a perfectly apt American movie made by a less controversial European director, made six years later?But what about the movie itself, you think? Well, think of it as an adult version of Snow White and forget about the Seven Dwarfs. If you can't, you have a fetish and you are very much welcome, but you have a problem with the film. So: Snow White, the Evil Queen, and Prince Charming. Las Vegas is the mirror on the wall, the bad guy who says to the Queen (Gina Gershon, one of the most carnivorous actresses who ever were) that there is a fairer of them all. Snow White (Elisabeth Berkeley, not a great thespian by any mean but the quintessence of bimbo, and as such an inspired casting) does what Zach Snyder's limp Sucker Punch was unable to show: she dances like hell, thank you very much, and when she does it is impossible not to watch (the impossibility of the male gaze not to stare at beauty being our fetish of the week).Showgirls is a great movie, but it's the Versace in a row of Prada. It's tacky, expensive and camp, yet smart as a whip and, at the end of the day, surprisingly human for all the caricature involved. Its backstage scenes are as superiorly filmed as its show scenes are flatly vulgar, all organised confusion and petty revenge when no natural empathy is involved. And a lot of empathy there is at work here. For all its bare breasts, implied sex and titillation, Showgirls is at its core a feminine movie, its men helpless or unable to touch (Kyle McLachlan, miscast but not as Prince Charming). It's Grrrl power two years before Spice World. It's a shame to the Razzie Awards, which Verhoeven was the first director to attend to collect his. Irony, see, is a tightrope, but if you get to the other side the same ones who derided you will clap, given time. And balance.Also, writer Joe Eszterhaz was at its best with this one. "They wanna f*** Hope. This is a classy joint". This is screwball for the millennium. A perfect companion to Wall Street (1987), except that one got an Oscar even though it is much inferior, Showgirls is like its "Goddess" heroin, ambitious as hell and how f*** does it know the moves to get there (this one pool sex scene with Prince Charming a cyborg terror one). But when a drag queen becomes the closest she has to a mother, Nomi is genuinely happy to see her again. "Full of s***", sings the fat lady. Irony, yes?
