Showgirls (1995) User Reviews

This movie is more fun to watch than actually good

[kevin_robbins · 6/10 · 8 October 2022]

Showgirls (1995) is a movie that I recently rewatched for the first time in a long time on Tubi. The storyline follows a young lady with a troubled past who wants to become a dancer. She initially makes ends meet at a local strip club where anything goes until she meets a man who agrees to help her refine her technique until is recognized by a more reputable dance company. Once she joins the reputable dance company she discovers it may not be as reputable as it appears.

This movie is directed by Paul Verhoeven (Robocop) and stars Elizabeth Berkley (Saved by the Bell), Kyle MacLachlan (Dune), Gina Gershon (Killer Joe), Glenn Plummer (South Central), Robert Davi (The Goonies) and William Shockley (Robocop).

This movie is more fun to watch than actually good. The women are gorgeous and the dance scenes are very well done. The settings, attire and circumstances are interesting. The storyline is uneven and had potential but could have been executed better. The cast is impressive and well selected. There is an abundance of nudity throughout this picture and a great pool sex scene. The rape scene was tough and how it was handled felt unrealistic, as did several parts of the ending. However, this movie is hard not to watch and enjoy the journey it takes you on.

Overall, this movie is not good but it is entertaining and worth a watch. I would score this a 6/10 and recommend seeing once.

I've certainly seen worse

[smatysia · 6/10 · 4 July 2018]

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.

Both amazing and terrible.

[jellopuke · 5/10 · 6 June 2022]

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.

The dream factory

[tieman64 · 30 September 2007]

"You want it, you pay for it." - Club bouncer (Showgirls)

Showgirls is an interesting film, though people won't appreciate it for many years to come. The problem with Paul Verhoeven is that nobody realises that he's a satirist. All his films shot outside of the Netherlands are intensely satirical and not meant to be taken at face value. With "Showgirls" he quotes from "All about Eve" and "42nd Street", tearing apart those pipe dream stories that audiences have been so conditioned to absorb.

Verhoeven's real target isn't Hollywood or American crassness, but rather those morally dubious "Star is Born" tales. The audience isn't punished for wanting to see sex and nudity, it's punished for wanting Nomi to succeed. The film is saying that in a crass society, success is bankrupt, and by pushing the pipe dream, you merely fuel this big, ugly machine.

Nomi, the star of "Showgirls", isn't a character. She's a piece of wood. A piece of wood not because she can't act, but because she's a mere slab of fuel, existing solely to be burnt up and combusted by her neon lit environment. She goes from strip club, to dance club, to theatre house, exploited all the way. And she loves it.

By the end of the film it's not funny that Nomi is going to make the same mistakes all over again. It's sad that despite the fact that the Myth has been revealed repeatedly, she is still seduced by it enough to try all over again. It's like those Toys they give kids at Macdonald's. The child knows the toy is total crap, but they just have to collect the other one. Why? Because it's a toy, and the child's perception is that toys are fun.

"Showgirls" deals with this false perception. The toy is crap. It's unsatisfying, but we want it because we can't find satisfaction in what we have and in where we're at.

"Showgirls" is also intensely symbolic. Song titles mirror Nomi's apartment numbers, each of her jobs takes her one step further into hell (which ironically is her goal), she symbolically dies and is reborn, the famous lapdance is shot to mirror the sex scene in the pool, and the film ends with Nomi battered and broken and more importantly, even more ignorant than before. Then there's her "dream man" (hinted at by a billboard at the start) who turns out to be a devilish rapist by the end of the film. This theme of one being punished for ones "fantasies" permeates the entire film and extends outward in such a way that the audience itself participates. At first we're titillated, but by the end, the sex has numbed us and we reel in disgust.

In terms of style, the film is intentionally over the top. It's loud, crass and overly colourful. Nomi herself thrusts her body at us in a ridiculously pathetic manner. The director's aim is not to titillate. He wants us to pity the girl's desperation, her falsity, the tasteless stains of her makeup and desperate contortions of her body. Nomi is dumb and is always begging us to accept her. And so Verhoeven subjects us to visual and aural overload, all designed to numb our minds. We leave the film stupid, and unaroused, poetically blind and unaware of the truths it has shown us.

The best satires tend to raise the most unjustified hate, and "Showgirls" is no different. What's different is that the nudity, sex and overall tacky "bad movie" aesthetic of the film, prevents it from being re-evaluated or even embraced. Future audiences, desensitized to pornography and nudity, will probably accept this film easier.

There's also one really good shot in the film that reminded me of Welles. The shot occurs when Nomi sits on a park bench alongside a busy street. The bench is in the foreground, but perspective is forced in such a way that it dwarfs the Las Vegas buildings surrounding it.

In terms of camera work, the film is also impeccably shot. Verhoeven's camera is precise, with some beautiful steadicam and crane shots.

7.5/10- An interesting satire, intentionally camp, cartoonish and over the top. Though some scenes feel tasteless, the film as a whole surprisingly seems to get better with repeated viewings. Pay attention to one scene in which children walk innocently through a theatre, nude women all around. Moment's later a woman curses violently and the kids and their mother are shocked. Verhoeven's point is clear: language, violence and exploitation are far more tasteless than any naked breast.

Shown Girl is a 10.

[FallenEye · 5/10 · 30 March 2018]

There's a point in this film, where it takes a sharp, serious and dark turn, out of damn near nowhere, and it's that moment in the movie that encapsulates just how unfocused Showgirls is.

If I was to take this movie seriously, it would be a 3.5/10. If I weren't to take it seriously, then it would be 6/10. The sexiness and erotica points of the film were done relatively well, however, the story, the acting and over acting, the pace and those hilariously ridiculous seizure fests they tried to pass off as dancing or some kind of choreography were just too shockingly laughable.

Showgirls is sexy, especially Elizabeth Berkley, and is as progressive as any ordinary film tends and needs to be without being static, however, it ran longer than it had to, and that just stretched an already poorly handled story too thin. Its structure and pace doesn't allow one to feel the necessary emotions of sympathy, however parts like what happens in the beginning of the movie give it some edge. I'll meet Showgirls halfway and give it 5/10.

My Favorite Bad Movie

[rstef1 · 5/10 · 6 September 2022]

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?

Berkley needs to calm the F down

[SnoopyStyle · 5/10 · 15 May 2015]

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.

Liking this makes you more guilty than eating After Eight mints for breakfast

[bowmanblue · 7/10 · 21 March 2015]

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 have a theory about this film...

[mentalcritic · 5/10 · 23 February 2002]

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.

Don't get the hate for this movie

[greggman · 7/10 · 18 January 2023]

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.

This is one ugly film. It's pretty good for unintentional comedy.

[Lumpenprole · 1/10 · 25 February 2002]

* spoilers, nothing but spoilers

In her role of Nomi (an unlikely and symbolically heavy-handed name), Elizabeth Berkeley comes off as someone with an impulse control problem and the attention span of a puppy. She spends most of the movie with a vacant expression on her face that gives way to unprovoked screaming fits. Her character starts the film as a jerk who treats people badly and end the film as a jerk who treats people badly. The plot, in fact, has no effect on her personality. This is amazing, cuz the plot is such a lame moralistic fable to begin with. Innocent girl (from NY City?) makes it to the big city, works her way up and finally succeeds by sinking to the depths of the people around her. This makes her want to leave, cuz, you know, she's become everything she's ever hated or something. The problem with this story is that Nomi STARTS OUT as an awful jerk who would push a colleague down some stairs to get ahead - she just hasn't thought of it yet. So the story, which anyone over the age of four has seen before, is pointless.

The dialogue is atrocious - it's Penthouse Letters stuff. It's how horny old men think young women talk when they're in the bathroom. That said, there's a lot dialogue in this movie that is unforgettable in the same way that Battlefield Earth makes variations on `I have leverage' unforgettable.

Kyle MacLachlan spends the whole movie with a stupid stoner smirk plastered on his face.

The sex… ohmygod the sex. The simulated sex scenes in this movie are comic gold. At least twice that I remember Nomi mounts the MacLachlan character and does this move on him that looks kinda like a fish out of water. Her spine… it sorta whips up and down so that her torso is flipping in mid air. The hilarious part is that one of the sex scenes is in a hot tub and when Nomi does her thing, her body slaps and plops the water. Besides being unerotic, the sex scenes go on forever.

I have never, ever, before in my life, wanted women in movies to put some clothes on. I admit it - I'm disgusting. When the sex scene got started in Muholland Dr., the thought going through my mind was `THIS IS THE BEST MOVIE EVER!' But Showgirls takes the juvenile male urge to stare at boobies and pummels it. About half way through the film all I could think about the all those breasts is that support is a matter of comfort. It just seemed merciless to depict a world where there are apparently so few bras.

Anyway, that's the funny stuff. Now for the awfulness. Black people are nurturing. There are two characters for Nomi to crap on, despite their best efforts to help her out. Glenn Plummer plays a dancer who wants to help Nomi perfect her absolutely jaw-dropping dancing talent and Gina Rivera plays a sweet person who takes Nomi in when she arrives in Vegas. When Rivera's character, Molly, first meets Nomi, Nomi is attacking Molly's car cuz her luggage was stolen and the car was nearby when she needed to hit something. Instead of beating Nomi senseless, Molly buys her some food, offers to be her roommate and help finding a job. And it goes on like that. Nomi is basically infantalized during scenes with Molly. This is true of Glenn Plummer's character as well, who spends most of his screen time chastising Nomi like a parent about wasting her talent. Of course, in the dark world of Showgirls, nice people can't exist. Plummer's character turns out to be a guy who says that every girl is a dancer of extraordinary talent to sleep with them (but with Nomi, he really means it) and after mothering Nomi for half the movie, Molly gets gang raped cuz… I dunno, victims are always asking for jerks to be nice to them and that's what she gets or something equally insightful.

Everyone in the film keeps talking about how Nomi is a phenomenal dancer. I didn't see anything to justify this. Actually, they labored the point so much that it invites scrutiny that her dancing can't live up to. It's kinda cruel really. What if someone made a movie with Steve Buscemi where everyone marvels at how handsome he is? I don't think there's anything wrong with his appearance, but if you spent two hours being asked to look at him and admire his features...

Anyway, this movie is bad in so many ways, but it's memorable. It's like watching Plan 9 for the laughs, but different. It played recently at the Midnight Mass in SF - a venue that plays camp classics like early John Waters and the Mommy Dearest. Verhoeven and Eszthehas set out to make a naughty, dark movie. Instead they made a crude, incompetent and disgusting film. Showgirls is probably exactly the film they intended to make and that's why it's funny.

Gina Gershon didn't stink.

It's showtime!

[CriticsVoiceVideo · 10/10 · 12 November 2020]

Elizabeth Berkeley gives a fearless tour de force of energy in this all nude, all adult, all out, legendary iconic MGM dance musical film. The only one of it's kind. Exactly the perfect love child of "Flashdance" and "Basic Instinct". The rest of the cast is amazing of course. Beautifully shot and edited. Brilliant direction by Paul Verhoeven. No one does it like him. The best female stripper movie ever made and one of the best movies ever with a killer film score. It's exciting, it's dazzling, and very very sexy!

Hugely enjoyable amount of boobs

[R_Alex_Jenkins · 7/10 · 21 October 2020]

I was entertained and that's what mattered to me the most in this cheesy flick containing massive amounts of beautiful boobs. And what great boobs they were, ranging from Elizabeth Berkley to Gina Gershon, with nipples extending into the night via buckets of ice, to peak our interest even more. I truly wasn't expecting it, and yes I thought there would be a nice bit of nudity here and there, but I wasn't expecting such lovely women displaying nearly all their intimacy so much of the time.

This, however, doesn't make for a good film per se, and there were far too many doubtful moments to make this a classic, such as the first girl that Nomi meets on her arrival in Vegas turning out to be her best friend through thick and thin, which was all too convenient like so many scenes in the film, with both of them doubling up in a rickety trailer when Nomi is clearly earning very respectable money and dating Ferrari-driving millionaires, plus some dubious casting decisions in Kyle MacLachlan, Glenn Plummer and Robert Davi, in fact, nearly all of the men were dreadful (were they supposed to be?), plus the famously wooden acting of Elizabeth Berkley, bless her beautiful soul. And lest not forget the super stunningly gorgeous Gina Gershon who had me erecting out of my chair, good God!

And I can only guess that this film received such shamelessly horrible reviews in its day because of the way we took ourselves so seriously back then, as though each new film was supposed to mean something significant and hit new highs, instead of being what this film actually is, a giant middle finger to our shallow society - we're not here to make a statement - but here to have fun and show off some beautiful tits while emphasizing how banal and basically obvious the male species can be, and often is.

I enjoyed it, so there.

A career ending movie

[Maciste_Brother · 1/10 · 14 April 2004]

The careers of everyone involved with SHOWGIRLS are all but finished: Elizabeth Berkley, Kyle MacLachlan, Gina Gershon, Robert Davi, director Paul VerHOeven and "writer" Joe EszterHACK's career are just about over right now. The only one I think who can still make a comeback is Gina. But even so, the stink from SHOWGIRLS will last an eternity.

SHOWGIRLS is the funniest, most over the top trash/camp film ever made. The dialogue is endlessly quotable. The people who funded this turkey should have asked for their money back. It's hard to believe anyone invested $45 million for this unsexy quasi-scam of a movie. If men can be blamed for thinking with what's between their legs, SHOWGIRLS is the perfect example of this. And then some. Poor Kyle. I actually used to like him. But after watching him in this disastrous movie playing the most embarrassing character ever, I have a hard time watching Kyle in anything he's done, like BLUE VELVET or DUNE.

As for those who say this is a genuine critique of the USA, get real. It's just trash through and through. If it had been a real critique of the USA, religion would have been included somewhere in the storyline. As it is, SHOWGIRLS is a totally "secular" (and more European) product and therefore hardly an authentic view of what makes Americans tick.

So, if you're in the mood to watch something stupid, bad and unintentionally hilarious, you just have to watch SHOWGIRLS. It's classic trash.

Read between the lines!

[candigrrl · 14 November 2001]

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.

Sleazepots

[onepotato2 · 1/10 · 8 May 2007]

What's really gross about 'Showgirls' isn't that it's sexist, shallow or poorly acted... that's the good part! What's gross is that this is what it's creators think is sexy. Everyone involved has immature and "dirty" ideas about sex which makes the whole effort juvenile. Who wants to see Nomi finger herself during her monthly? Who on the planet wants to see Kyle Maclachlan naked, bang any living thing with that stupid, stupid '80s hairdo? Would you want to see Bea Arthur having sex? That's about how little I want to see Smiley McWonderchin in anything resembling a sexual position. It's troubling with a super-high EWWW! factor to see other people try to seriously depict what they think is sexy, when the most comprehensive encyclopedia of "sexy" you could imagine would still not have room for what they're doing. Nomi's volatility is sexy? or she's a shrieking, combative sociopath?

You know how in rock movies, nothing is ever less cool than when the "cool" band finally performs, and you just sit there wincing at how bad it is? This is the "sex" corollary. Nothing is less sexy, than people who think they're sexy (and who think they're making a sexy movie) failing at both. And frankly if you've ever seen Joe Esterhaus, you really have no interest in what he thinks is sexy. Joe's 'sexy' is your 'sleazy.' Not to knock sleazy, which can be fun, but even Joe's sleaze isn't very imaginative or arousing.

You could catch a popular live show called 'Sock Puppet Showgirls' a few years ago. It was deeper and sexier than this movie, because of course, a sock has a much greater acting range than Elizabeth Berkley.

Not as bad as I thought

[celestial_princess · 5/10 · 21 October 2019]

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.

Razzie

[johnnyhbtvs27 · 1/10 · 24 November 2021]

How many times can Elizabeth Berkley get offended by someone and theatrically marched off in a rage? I put this performance from her up with one of the worst performances of all time, it is indefensible.

The dialogue is some of the worst ever put to screen, no wonder people have Rocky Horror type screenings of Showgirls. Once again Elizabeth Berkley is the biggest offender, choosing to overact in even the smallest scene. Kyle MacLachlan spends the movie acting with his fringe, while Gina Gershon is that out there with her performance, i don't know if it's great or awful.

The only one who comes away from this film with any credit is Gina Ravera, who is great, but then receives the worst monstrosity in the whole movie with the diabolical rape scene.

It deserves it's reputation as one of the worst movies of all time. The documentary, You Don't Nomi, is mostly just fan theories trying to defend the movie which is mostly nonsense.

What's So Funny?

[Falconeer · 7/10 · 16 September 2019]

Typical tale of a young woman hitch-hiking to Las Vegas with just a suitcase and a dream, who finds stardom after a harrowing climb to the top. Only this time iconic director Paul Verhoeven is at the helm, creator of such big films like Robocop and Total Recall. The result is a BIG film, filled with BIG performances and jarring cinematography. Verhoeven expertly weaves the seedy, amoral tale together with the Vegas backdrop, which becomes a character in itself. The neon soaked scenery pops off the screen, along with the garish costumes and stage makeup that is synonymous with the famed desert oasis that is Las Vegas. Believe it or not, some reviews complain that this is a "tacky production," obviously from people who have never been to Vegas or worked in the entertainment industry out there. No, a movie about this place and THESE people can't possibly be subtle, or understated. Those familiar with Verhoeven's earlier work will recognize in "Showgirls" the exact same theme and story arc seen in many of his other films. "Spetters," "Starship Troopers," "Soldier of Orange," have a theme IDENTICAL to "Showgirls." It's the tale of young people reaching for big dreams, ambitions that are sometimes too lofty to achieve. One of them "makes it" while the others get eviscerated trying to succeed. "Showgirls" is most similar to "Spetters" in this regard. Nomi Malone replaces Rien, who wants to knock the big, established dirt bike racing champ Gerrit Witkamp (Rutger Hauer) out of the top spot and take his place. In Nomi's world Crystal Conners is the big, arrogant star who needs to be pushed aside so Nomi can reach the top. And of course these tales are always accompanied by intense sexuality and violence and violent sexuality. "Showgirls" is no different; the direction is faultless and the production values are through the roof. So what happened? It seems that American audiences are simply not able to handle explicit sexuality and nudity on the big screen. Looking at current Hollywood productions, American movies, though loaded with violence, are virtually sex/nudity free. So much so that I am surprised whenever I see a bare breast in a mainstream Hollywood production. Well "Showgirls" has it, and possesses a European attitude towards it. Elizabeth Berkley is sexy and fearless in her role as the over ambitious Nomi. She was a tv actress and gives that kind of performance, nothing brilliant but it fits the role perfectly. The real star of this one is Gina Gershon, in her role as the tough as nails Crystal. It's obvious she had a blast making this movie, and her performances makes this a truly fun ride. By no means a great film, but certainly far from a failure, and this one has proven that it has stood the test of time. Pretty much everything else made in 1995 is forgotten, but "Showgirls" still receives attention and revival screenings. It's this generation's "Rocky Horror Picture Show."

518th Review: Truly deserves its awful reputation and then some

[intelearts · 1/10 · 26 November 2012]

In a word: eeeeeew. This film will make you ashamed. Or at least it really, really should. One star is given with the word (awful) as an indicator - this film is exactly that - awful. What life itself cannot prepare you for is just how awful this is.

Not only does everyone spend more time with their clothes off than on, there is a sadistically nasty streak to the whole thing - including a particularly nasty rape - that sucks all the joy and silliness out of it.

I finally got around to watching it having avoided it for the best part of 20 years and now understand why that avoidance was a good thing. It is seriously one of the most utterly appalling films ever made and shows that it is possible to spend millions of dollars on nothing.

I will never ever ever watch it again - it's not ironic, or cultic or anything. Just gave this reviewer chills as to how this project ever got greenlighted in the first place. I will not be watching the sequel either. A film only for desperately sad men.

Elizabeth I-Am-FEARLESS-Berkley...

[Rogue-32 · 7/10 · 1 November 2002]

...took a viciously unfathomable amount of heat for having the courage to turn up the heat in Showgirls, a movie that elevates trash into art. A lot of people think this film is disgusting, but to ME, what's disgusting is how Ms. Berkley (a fearless Leo who does her Leonine pride proud) was anything but lionized for her willingness to lay it all on the line - and lay it, she does, as only a Leo can - with supremely confident and dazzling royal bravado. (Yes, of COURSE I am a Leo too.) Kyle M. is great here as well, playing the role of Sleaze Personified, and Gina Gershon vamps it up good an' proper to beat the band. I am still trying to get my hands on the version of the film I saw in theatres, where Nomi's mind-numbingly erotic lap dance sequence and the kick-ass sequence at the end aren't edited. If anyone knows where I can find this, it wouldn't suck.

hilarious sleezefest.

[triple8 · 5/10 · 26 November 2003]

Showgirls is one of those movies that falls into the genre:"sleezeart". It's not a movie to be taken seriously in any way and it definetly is the quintessential "bachelor party" dream movie.

To be fair though I saw this in the theatres(went in not having any idea what it was) and proceeded to definetly be entertained so the evening wasn't a total waste. This is, at least a mvoie one can howl over. When it was over most of the comments were about how bad it was. But at least it wasn't boring.

In all seriousness-the title itself is a dead giveaway that one isn't going in to see shakespear. Showgirls is what it is-its a movie about Las Vegas,strippers and what else?-showgirls. Not a movie to take seriously but hardly boring-and though i have no desire to see it again I could see this one being viewed in a big party situation with people whooping and hollering-its that kind of movie and it knows it.

But I don't think the movie was meant to be taken seriously. This is not a sex moive that thinks of itself as anything else-I didnt get the feeling, unlike "wild orchid" for example this movie thought it was great-it was just a sex and showgirl party movie and speaking of "wild orchid" this one at least managed to be better then that so thats 1 good thing.

i loved this piece of crap

[nobbytatoes · 9/10 · 12 September 2005]

Nomi is a young girl who is going to Los Vegas to become a dancer. She's starts at a strip club called cheetahs, then she makes it to the Stardust chorus line. Her friend Molly, she is a costume designer for the stardust, which helped with her career path. The lead dancer at Stardust is Chistal, and Nomi trys get overthrow her to get her part.

This is such a stupid movie, but that's what makes this movie such a treat. When this first came out 10 years ago, it majorly flopped. It was seen as exploitive against women and depraved. Elizabeth Berkley from saved by the bell fame used this movie as her chance to be taken as a serious actress, and she was outcast from acting. I think this movie was made just at the wrong time. It has been ten years and what social satire in '95 was, is very different now. I found this very empowering towards women. It shows just how blind men can be; that women have more power than they actually realize.

Elizabeth Berkley does do a very bad job at acting, but there is this charm she has. All the over acting brought some dignity to her character. Gina Gershon as Christal plays the best bitch; very two faced. Kyle MacLachlan looks like he stumbled off the set of Blue velvet, but brought some of Denis hoppers sleaze along with him.

Paul Verhoeven directed this bag of sleaze, but like a lot of his movies, there is this mood of depression; showing life at its worse, where it cant get any worse. If you've seen Total Recall, RoboCop and Starship Troopers you'll notice this running theme of his.

This does have a bit of a slow burn to it. A lot of the back stabbing doesn't happen till about the hour and half point, but its a great cynical satire till then. There's so many clichés in here, but you kinda don't think about them as most of the time your wondering if you just saw what you just SAW. And the one liners are just awesome.

This may not be a master piece, its far from it. But this show just how great some bad tasting movies can be the most pleasurable experience.

Not the world's worst movie...

[lostonthehighway · 7/10 · 28 June 2021]

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.

It's so bad that it's good...not

[folie · 1/10 · 31 January 2000]

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.