Reseñas de usuarios

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.

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 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.

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?

Well, actually, it concerns the three films Paul Verhoeven has made since Basic Instinct. In order, they are Showgirls, Starship Troopers, and Hollow Man. Think back to the time when Basic Instinct was released, and a sexually repressed American nation, despite the misguided and utterly stupid protests of gay activists, was acknowledging for the first time since the 1970s that sex is a natural, healthy part of life and nothing to be ashamed of. The so-called Erotic Thriller had become a new mainstream, and this is where Verhoeven's problems with the mainstream American media began.

As Hollow Man quickly demonstrates, the more mainstream Paul Verhoeven's films become, the more slated they get by the critics. Which is fair enough - the less it works, too. Starship Troopers toned down the sex to almost American standards (the sex scene is still far more stimulating than anything American directors have produced), and brought the violence up to a level more palatable to American audiences. It is a well-known statistical fact outside of America that parents in the USA are more comfortable with their children seeing other human beings torture and multilate one another than they are with their children seeing a decent, healthy act that forms the basic step in how our species perpetuates itself.

Critics in America attacked Starship Troopers as being facistic and shallow, when the reality is that the film was based upon the same propaganda films that were shown to young Americans in the 1940s. The critical misbalance was even more apparent with Hollow Man, Verhoeven's most mainstream film to date. Here he was, giving American audiences what they indicated they want, while lacing it with a morality play based on what happens when a man with Christianised morals loses his accountability, and the critics had the nerve to claim it had no story. I think there is something fundamentally wrong with American media in light of that.

Returning to the time when Showgirls was produced, the Erotic Thriller was the newest idea from Hollywood, and Basic Instinct brought a whole different audience to the theatre - those who wanted softcore porn and weren't afraid of the fact. Unfortunately, one of the minds who was responsible for creating this whole new sub-genre, Joe Eszterhas, is quite patently a sick, misogynistic, and repressed individual. Just like the gay activists protesting Basic Instinct unfairly charged Verhoeven with homophobia, ironically. If you don't believe me, I invite you to take a look at Eszterhas' two subsequent films, Sliver and Jade, then tell me that Verhoeven is solely responsible for the misogynistic flavour of Showgirls.

Of course, the difference between Showgirls and Basic Instinct is that when Basic Instinct was made, Eszterhas still had to sell his screenplays to studios, whereas he only had to say "I wrote Basic Instinct" when trying to shuffle his screenplays for Showgirls, Jade, and Sliver to studios. Seriously, watch those three together, they should be called "the misogyny trilogy".

Anyway, the whole upshot of this is that Paul Verhoeven is currently copping a very raw deal from the critics. While I wouldn't call his last two films faultless, even Showgirls deserves to have its artistic merits considered. Any film that is released in a repressive society like America and somehow manages to turn nudity into a uniform has got to have something going for it.

Frankly, I hope Paul does go through with the idea he was contemplating earlier - to go back to Europe and make films without the atmosphere of retarded, repressive critics and the Motion Picture Annoyance Association breathing down his neck. Maybe back there he can make films that portray the world as it really is instead of having to sugar-coat it for Americans who don't like having the mirror held up to their Christian sexual repression. Or better still, I hope his next project once again engages Ed Neumeier's services as a screenwriter.

I saw this when it opened and thought it was fine then but the people I was with hated it and said Elizabeth Berkley can't act. I didn't see any problem with her acting. I chalked it up to their having watched too much "Saved by the Bell" and then not being able to separate Elizabeth Berkley's character in that show from her character in this show. Me, I'd never once watched "Saved by the Bell" so I just saw Elizabeth Berkley as Nomi Malone and she did fine.

For some reason I recently (2023) decide to watch it again. As far as I can tell there's nothing wrong with this movie. It's interesting all the way through. It's got fun and interesting characters. "Mama" is hilarious. And of course all the other characters are great. All the behind the scenes of the show is super interesting as is Nomi's ascent and education.

It's also pretty unique. What other movie covers a topless revue in Vegas in such a gritty way?

If you go in looking for bad movie maybe you'll find it. If you go in looking for a good movie, you might find that too. I did. Unless you're just not into sex, nudity, and bunch of "bad people" characters. If those things upset you then yea, this movie is not for you. It's not a bad movie though.

Although this movie has great set design and dance sequences, the ONLY reason to watch this movie is Gina Gershon. Not only did she survive this turkey, she managed to boost her career out of it!

Having said that, I beg some of the previous reviewers here to please wake up. I don't mind if you like this movie for the show, the acting, the cinematography, the nudities....but don't tell me that it is a satire or a cult film.

This is not the kind of movie that is so-bad-it-is-actually-camp-fun. It is bad, it stays bad and it stinks badly. A camp movie is one made with genuine intentions and incompetency. This movie is made by/with seasoned professionals, greed, lots of dough & zero heart. It had too much $/credential to be excused.

Also, this is NOT a satire. To be a satire, it has to have some intelligence. This movie has zilch. It pretends to have a moral while it has none. It pretends to show how women are exploited in Las Vegas while itself is the biggest perpetrator. If you set out to do tongue-in-cheek exploitation movies (like most b-movies and porn), be honest and I'll respect/enjoy that. Just don't be hypocritical.

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.

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.

If you like porn, don't watch it. If you like musicals with dance, don't watch it. If you like drama, don't watch it. In fact, I can't think of any reason to watch it.

Nomi Malone (Elizabeth Berkley) hitchhikes into Las Vegas and gets her suitcase stolen. She befriends Molly Abrams (Gina Ravera) who is a seamstress backstage at the Stardust Hotel show where Cristal Connors (Gina Gershon) is the star. Nomi has a job as a stripper at the seedy Cheetah Club run by Al Torres (Robert Davi). Cristal shows up at the club and buys a lap dance with Nomi for boyfriend Zack Carey (Kyle MacLachlan). James Smith (Glenn Plummer) becomes her conscience and her teacher.

It's so bad that it's good. That's a popular opinion but it's not mine. Berkley's wild over-acting is too annoying. I keep thinking that this could be good cheese if Berkley could calm down. I think people are concentrating too much on the nudity of this Paul Verhoeven Joe Eszterhas concoction. The B-movie erotica is not the big problem. It's the horrible smell of angry relentless forced cheesiness. I do like Gina Gershon's performance but there is too many annoying things about this movie.

This film is so bad you must see it.

It was supposed to be a star-making vehicle for Elizabeth Berkley of "saved by the bell" which was actually a pretty good show.

I suppose they thought they could cash in by taking a semi-attractive star from a tame kids show and showing her in a lot of nakedness and sexual stupidity. Instead it was just plain embarrassing.

By the end of the movie you end up hating her so much that you're glad the movie trashed her 'career'.

Probably the best scene is her sex scene in the pool. It is so poorly acted and shot it is painful to watch. You can tell they thought they were creating some kind of ground-breaking sexual energy, but it just failed miserably.

A couple years ago they brought out a Showgirls boxed special with a shot glass and poster. I don't know how it sold, but I would love to have been a fly on the wall in the pitch meeting.

I saw this movie once a decade ago, yet I find myself compelled to spend 4 minutes of my life berating it.

Anyway, enjoy.

When I reviewed this title a year ago, I gave it 3 out of 10 stars and said I'd never watch it again. Well, I decided to give it another chance and watched it two more times when my son wasn't around. I still say it has a poor moral message (that one must resort to devious tactics to get ahead), but I'll admit that it wasn't as bad as I remembered it to be when I saw it 5 years ago. Is it smut? Yes, in several parts, it is smut. But I think what the actual message was, women (and some men) are used for their bodies in the sleazy underbelly of Las Vegas. Also, I think Hollywood was very unfair to Elizabeth Berkley after this movie tanked. I'm not saying it's a favorite of mine (it's not), but it undoubtedly took a lot of courage and hard work to complete this movie. I'm actually really sorry that Elizabeth Berkley's career never recovered after this. She's talented and this movie could have been a lot better; I think the execution was wrong, is all. So it's not a favorite of mine, but I'll admit that it's not nearly as bad as some other movies I've seen in the past. I give it 5 out of 10 stars, for the effort.

Yes, the movie teeters on sexploitation, and there an abundance of overacting. However, the story is as relevant today as it was upon release. Most films are scared to go to the terrifyingly real and dark places that Showgirls does. Give it a chance and you aren't guaranteed to regret it.

This film begs to be seen. There is nothing like anywhere else in the world of cinema. Elizabeth Berkeley's performance is a intense, dynamic powerhouse that you can't look away from. The film is glitzy, bright and colorful like a kaleidoscope and the plot twists and tonal shifts often feel the same. The set pieces are strange and beautiful. I don't know. I can see how it's upsetting to some people, but there is a lot going on here and if you go in with an open mind, and expectation that it's not just over the top but it blows up whatever you think the top is, there's a lot to enjoy too. It's not sexy. It's not nice. But that's kind of the point? I can't stop thinking about this movie.

I think most people who watch this movie don't look past the sex and dancing and dismiss it as a corny, sleazy, sexist flick. But the thing is, it's not a corny, sleazy, sexist flick. It's a corny, sleazy, sexist SATIRE.

I was told that this movie is terrible by countless people - look no further than the 4.9 rating on IMDb! - and even though it's not the best thing I've ever seen, it's not half bad.

The reason this movie is just so full of terrible people and exploitation and lap dances is because Las Vegas itself is full of terrible people and exploitation and lap dances. It's a cleverly written satire about the way that under its shiny, sequinned exterior Vegas is a pretty terrible place. And at first you think that that terrible place is going to completely demolish our innocent young heroine until - wait - we realise that Nomi isn't as innocent as we once thought and she's about to meet her match. And I think that people don't realise that this is supposed to be a satirical movie about how ruthless Vegas is.

Okay, yes, there's a lot of graphic content. A lot. This thing is rated NC-17 for a reason. And on a level, it is definitely a flick that appeals to, and is written by, the male gaze. But in between all of the shows, there were actually genuinely interesting moments. And again, this is a movie that does not sugarcoat a single thing. As I've said before, Vegas behind the curtain is a filthy place and tis movie showcases each and every last bit of it.

I'm not saying this film is flawless - the plot line is pretty basic and there are parts where you start to see the trashiness of it all shine through. However, I like what this movie does differently from every other one similar in genre - the fact that Nomi does not take s**t from anyone. For once, you have a character who threatens creeps and rapists with switchblades and throws ice at disgusting producers who cross the line and helps her friends. She does everything on her own terms and that's awesome to see.

As for the acting - I disagree with the fact that Elizabeth Berkley "killed her career" with the "terrible acting" in this movie. Again, remember that this is a satire - all of the acting, just like all of the performances, was intentionally over-the-top. And Berkley played both the determined and confident showgirl and the innocent Las Vegas newcomer (Versayce?) really well. And she's also a pretty good dancer, unlike what certain people say - not to mention all of it was done in high heels. Kyle MacLachlan is the world's slimiest slime ball in this movie - the likes of which are very common in these kinds of industries - and Gina Gershon is someone who you simultaneously love and hate, much like Nomi does.

Don't take this movie at face level. It's not the most intellectual thing you'll see in your life, but don't dismiss it like everyone else.

-Sasha.

Is the only way I can describe Elizabeth Berkley's so-called acting in this film!. The acting plummets from the moment she pulls out a knife and gives her best angry face in the first two minutes, the acting gets so cheesy it makes Jedward look like a formidable act. I know I seem far too critical but seriously at times the acting gets THAT bad you start feeling awkward, about as awkward when you watch a film with your parents and a nude scene pops up. I just think that the whole film is ruined by Elizabeth's poor acting and cheesy child like mood swings and hissy fits. The dancing looks awful Elizabeth is constantly looking stiff, angry and robotic. If you're looking for a cheap B list movie and a bit of skin then this may be the film for you but be warned the painful part is having to sit through watching it.