candigrrl

I have one question. What exactly did Maria Callas do to the people that made this film? Whatever it was, it must have been pretty bad for them to feel the need to get this horrible revenge. Horrible it is, all the way through.

I get the feeling this could turn into a cult classic. It's true that in parts, it's very very funny. Fanny Ardant plays ze great Kah Lass as a campy Gloria-Swanson-in-Sunset-Boulevard creation. She'll shriek at the drop of a hat and stamp around as if her life depended on it. Listen, don't get me wrong. I like Fanny Ardant. She's a very talented actress, as she has demonstrated in films such as Ridicule, Vivement dimanche!, 8 femmes... but here her performance is absolutely awful. Nostril-flaring, eye-widening, hissy-fitting horror.

Jeremy Irons doesn't have much to do as Callas's manager. Mainly he just follows Maria around, trying to convince her to do things, and then he has a "Oh, yes, don't forget I'm gay" scene every so often. Beautiful. And Joan Plowright is actually quite funny. You get the impression that she's always a beat away from rolling her eyes.

Listen, though. If you like Maria Callas, don't see this film. Please don't. It makes her out to be some sort of caricature, and it's actually quite insulting. If you don't mind either way, well, see it? Why not? It's diverting, at least. And if you get bored with the storyline, you can just pick out movie errors. My favourite: Callas out in her car, driving in endless circles...

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.

Okay, I admit it. I'm a Julia fan. But before I saw this movie I'd heard so much about it being terrible that I had incredibly low expectations - so I guess I was going in to see it from a different angle to most people.

I have to say, I was pleasantly surprised. I actually saw 'Mouse Hunt' or whatever it's called once on TV, didn't think too much of it, and I was hoping that 'The Mexican' would be different. Luckily, it was.

Brad Pitt gives a sweet performance as Jerry, the accident prone hero, but the best part of the movie is the chemistry between Julia Roberts as Sam and James Gandolfini as Leroy - an unlikely relationship between a kidnapper and a kidnappee (is that a word?).

I'd advise people to see this movie with an open mind. If you expect miracles you'll probably be disappointed. But I actually did really like it.

Oh, and it made me cry. Four times. How embarrassing is that? Maybe I'm getting my period or something.