Showgirls

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.

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 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.

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?

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...