Showgirls. Lo prohibido

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?

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.

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!

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...

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.