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.

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?

The seedy under belly of Las Vegas? Nude lap dancing? A tough old broad with a heart of gold and the mouth of a sewer? A ruthless climb to the top? Kicking a fuax Michael Bolten's azz in thigh highs? This movie has it all and then some! Showgirls is one of the funniest comedies ever made. OK, so it was supposed to be an erotic drama but forget that and sit back and laugh your way through the very best of the worst movies ever made.

There wasn't a thing that did not go wrong with this film. The script reads like it was created via the Hollywood processor. Feed in one part 'Flashdance', another 'Basic Instinct' and with more than a with a tiny dose of the great 'All About Eve', and then stir with a few characters lifted from a 'Mannix' rerun: the Cheetah club operator (who reads like he came from pimp school 101) the chubby foul-mouthed MC with a heart of gold, and best friend who will have to suffer and ladies and gentleman, we are ready to shoot! And what about the cast? Madonna, in one of the few wise film choices she made, turned down the role of the leading lady of Las Vegas and Gina Gershon stepped in. Drew Barrymore said no thanks to the role of Nomi, the ambitious dancer who was ready to claw her way to the top, and after they hit up every B, C and D list of actresses they ended up casting Elizabeth Berkley. Who, up to then, was best known for her sweetie pie role on the tween comedy "Saved By the Bell.'

Director Paul Verhoven and screenwriter Joe Esterhaus re-team coming of the world wide smash hit 'Basic Instinct' and most likely had virtual carte blanche, no one to say no. They made gazillions for the investors of Basic and were at the pinnacle of their power.

A lousy script, incredibly poor casting choices and direction and big glitzy production numbers and the recipe for a disaster of legendary proportions was the result.

Sit back, have a glass of champagne, get ready to toss your fries and sit back and enjoy. You will be able to tell all your friends you saw it long before the Broadway musical all drag version was all the rage!

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.

Back in 1995 I felt like it was one of the best films I have ever watched, it helped to embrace that what people don't wish to see, there's more life to this film than films like Terminator, ironically so cause it portrays the fakeness of people and the whole showbiz in the film, that contrast of revealing the truth in a fake world is what I believe draws people subconsciously to this film, it's a breath of fresh air.

This is more like an art film that demands the audience to think for themselves by being removed from the familiar archetypes or messages, it removes the anchor for anyone looking to relate to anyone in the fim at a surface level, the same is true about Bunuel or Fellini films, this film doesn't use neorealism to portray the world of the film, it uses the aesthetics of the American cinema, a language under the language, it's not a genre film to thrill in a basic commercial way like Robocop, Basic Instinct or Flashdance, it offers questions and ambiguity, as a little example, what does it suggests with a scene like Nomi and Crystal kissing at the end? What should we feel? For me it demonstrates glimpses of how much different their lives could be, how much there's more to these characters who long for something else, yet everyone seems to show glimpses of how deceptive can be at the same time, people are an enigma here, unaware of their own identity, and lost innocence, nothing is what seems to be, it is a facade that's breaking apart through Verhoeven's lens, using the naked bodies and Goddess show to portray the surface hiding their authentic heart and soul. Nomi's rebellious nature in a sense represents an outsider's look into this world that refuses to be seduced by it, yet it is at one point. There is also a cartoony playfulness and beauty in the way it is made, mainly visually, that appeals to the senses as well, but for me that style represents the seductiveness of this world that Nomi enters.

Another aspect I appreciate about it is how innocently and openly it shows nudity and sex, it shatters our inhibitions. The film goes against expectations often, it subverts the conventions, and that always is bound to be embraced more later in time, cause the conventions have changed, so in a later time the film has lost its potency to challenge our attachments to conventions, once it reaches the safe zone when such conventions/standards being gone years later, the film gets embraced, however its pure function as a medium made for a particular time to shock or make us uncomfortable is no longer there. The same is true for anything that flopped but got embraced much later, Citizen Kane, Wizard Of Oz, Vertigo, Blade Runner, Alexander, Fight Club, etc, none of these films serve the same function years later for the human collective.

Yes Showgirls seemed to be hated by some people at the time, the truth is the more we hate something the more it reveals some aspect of us that we can't stand, it's all a projection, anything that triggers hightened emotions. Some of the most despised art shows me more accurately the greater picture of our collective conscousness, or perhaps subconscious. Often the hated movies reveal the truth of how much people lack the surrender or openness to the unknown, the unexpected, the breaking of their beliefs or standards, the change, etc. It challenges the ego, and the willingness to look into our own shadow side, hence why I love to watch more often things that most people hate, there's always something that shows more originality or individuality of perception than in films that are largely embraced.

This film in particular was daring, going narrativelly forward in unpredictable ways, even though the plot seemed basic.