Showgirls 2: Penny's from Heaven (2011) User Reviews

It is technically a film.

[juliankennedy23 · 1/10 · 1 January 2019]

Showgirls 2: Penny's from Heaven: 1 out of 10: Rena Riffel one of the actresses from Showgirls cobbled together an unofficial sequel/remake fan film with some of the original cast. It is technically a film.

The Good: Under the right circumstances (I am thinking psilocybin mushrooms.) this movie can be entertaining. It starts off on the right foot and seems to be almost entertaining with interesting cameos and a Daliesque surreal touch but one quickly realizes it is just meandering from one setpiece to the other with no real rhyme or reason.

To her credit, Rena Riffel is in surprisingly good shape and does her best to work with her um assets. I would actually hold her blameless based on her performance was she not also the writer and director of the film.

The Bad: Amazon currently has a version of this film streaming called Showgirls 2: The Cut which is the original film cut down to 100 minutes from the original 145 minutes. Well, it is a start. The problem is not just length (though that certainly does not help matters) it is that the scenes simply never go anywhere in ways that defy description.

I almost think Showgirls 2 should be shown in Film School as a lesson of how not to shoot a scene, frame a shot, or transition from one scene to another. The entire film is like the first seven minutes of Manos the Hands of Fate with occasional middle-aged topless nudity. The level of filmmaking and storytelling incompetence is simply of the charts.

The Ugly: Rena Riffel is from the Cheri Caffaro school of filmmaking. No matter how old I get nothing more nubile is allowed to appear in the scene. So we have the primary rival/love interest Shelley Michelle playing the Gina Gershon role but looking like Rue Mccallahan in a Golden Girls rerun. People complained that Showgirls 2 was like watching a porn film with all the sex scenes taken out but in all honesty would it have been better if they were left in?

In Conclusion: You can do this kind of movie correctly. Misty Mundae and Seduction Cinema put together a string of these in the early aughts. (The Lord of the G-Strings: The Femaleship of the String, Spiderbabe etc). Rena Riffel does have a surrealistic touch to her story but she simply should not be allowed to edit or direct film and she needs a strong co-writer to focus her craft. She clearly has talent. Unfortunately, her surreal trip was lost in a deluge of craft errors and poor follow through.

Bad in the worst ways

[catimeup · 1/10 · 21 October 2018]

First off, while I didn't think the first film was great by any standards, it served up as a half decent b movie. The kind of movie you can watch if you want to make fun of and yet still have a semi decent viewing experience.

Showgirls 2 on the other hand makes a C movie (severely low budget amateur movies) look like Hollywood A films. The acting, camera work, sets, script...I'm not an accountant but even I want to do some forensic accounting to figure out where all the budget for this film went. i've seen better camera work by highschool students, and even better acting and scripts from low budget porn movies.

I was halfway through before I pulled the plug on it. do yourself a favour, watching anything more than the trailer is a waste of time.

Showgirls 2 the garage heap!

[MisterE2108 · 1/10 · 7 November 2012]

I can't stress how bad this film was, when I say it was bad, believe me it was bad. I've seen bad B-films that were better than this. Cinemax and Showtime have better skin flicks on cable that look like A-list films compared to this. The only saving grace is the film's star, writer and director...Rena Riffel. I call her the saving grace of the film for one reason and one reason only and that's because she's friggin HOT...well let me change that and say her body is hot, because Riffel definitely has a butterface. There's plenty of Riffel's killer body throughout this film, but as far as her acting, writing and directing skills, she seriously lacks in all three departments. I can't believe they actually considered this as a sequel to the 1995 T&A cult classic 'Showgirls'?! Glenn Plummer (who reprises his original role) is also in this film, but he obviously has loss much of his acting skills...or...he's probably on very friendly terms with Riffel, if you know what I mean?!, because there's no other reason he would choose to do this film, unless he's doing Riffel also. I'm going to apologize in advance because I'm a fan of both actors, but come on?! Anyway, watch this film if you're only out to see some Riffel bootay, other than that I have to advice people to stay away from this film....far away.

I was more entertained by the reviews!

[retort2 · 2 December 2018]

Although only experiencing 3 minutes of this film because my husband had to show me what he considered the worst film he ever saw (and he gave up after 15 minutes), I could not wait to jump on IMDb to learn a little more about how this catastrophie occurred and who was responsible.

These are THE BEST user reviews I have ever read! I spent more time reading the reviews then watching the movie! They are hilarious! My favorite is the one where the reviewer stated that it made one wish they were blind and deaf!

There was one review that simply seemed mean spirited towards the leading actress and I don't think was necessary, the rest were so good at saying how bad it was it made me consider turning it back on ... and then come to my senses and not.

An overlong homage best viewed in short bites.

[BlackJack_B · 5/10 · 4 January 2013]

Despite being a box office bomb when it arrived in theaters in September 1995, Showgirls has made up more than its budget over the years in video sales. The movie has gotten better with age and people are seeing it as more than just an All About Eve remake nowadays. Regardless of any revisionist's ideas, I've always felt the film was an ode to a Las Vegas that doesn't exist any longer in 2013. Back then, anything could happen in Sin City. Today, well, it's full of unfinished buildings and over-priced food. Back in 1995, it was a magical place.

Rena Riffel, who played Hope/Penny in the original, was able to fund a sequel through donations from KickStarter to write, produce, edit and direct a sequel. Penny's From Heaven takes us to the present day, where Penny and James Smith are still together 15 years later (the baby apparently was aborted) and they are still trying to get the money flowing. James wants to sell T-Shirts with the quotes he would use on Nomi while Penny still wants to be respected as a dancer. She wants to join a troupe known as Stardancers.

The entire 135-minute film is chock full of Showgirls references. Entire scenes are recreated, several actors from the first film reprise their roles and Penny goes through several adventures and jobs on her road to joining Stardancers.

While the movie has a Z-budget and the acting is atrocious (though I doubt they were trying hard), it's fun to hear the references to the cult classic prequel. Riffel has not aged one bit in the 15 years between movies other than a little age in the face. She still looks fantastic and plays the dumb blond to the hilt. It is hilarious to see her empty glaze look when she's with others. Shelly Michele, the body double to the stars, has aged quite well, too. She looks better than in the other movie I saw with her. After awhile, you ignore the bad acting and realize everyone was having fun shooting this film. The originality of this film is lacking as every part of the plot and the dialogue was lifted from Showgirls but it's from people who were key parts of the original.

I've heard there will be another sequel down the line. My only suggestion is to make it about 80 minutes long. For now, this sequel will hold you over for a long time. Just watch it in small bites unless you need something to make you drowsy. It's a very slow and talky film.

what a piece of garbage

[badheadcontent · 1/10 · 18 July 2018]

If there ever was a movie that should have never been thought of, written, shared, cast, rehearsed, shot, edited nor released, this is it.

Fails as a sequel, and mostly awkward as a parody of a satire

[brchthethird · 5/10 · 14 November 2014]

Where do you even begin with this? Porn-quality acting, basically no plot, shoddy camera-work, etc. However, there is a sly sense of humor running through it, particularly in Rena Riffel's character Penny. She has some of the funniest dialogue in the movie, although the movie is rather painful to sit through. Some scenes just go on for too long, and the conversations are pretty ridiculous and go nowhere. And the sex scenes/nudity are even less erotic/sexy than they were in the original Showgirls (which is referenced several times). Ultimately, it is worth at least one viewing, but preferably with other people so you can collectively laugh at how bad it is.

Cesspool of movie-making and acting

[TerribleKatherine · 1/10 · 23 January 2018]

Compared to this, Showgirls is a Oscar winning masterpiece. Nothing, absolutely nothing, in this movie is even decent. The plot, the acting, the camera work is all horribly wrong. The only reason to watch this is you want to take tips of how not to make a bad movie.

A hilarious disaster

[casablancavic · 2/10 · 1 January 2019]

Obviously this was not written to win any awards - and makes the not so good version of the original movie seem like award winning material.

Missing Gina Gershon and Elizabeth Berkley and Kyle McLaughlin, this still features a cast from the first one and a cast of unknowns.

Horribly written, dreadfully performed, atrociously edited, directed by somebody who is going blind and given a musical score by an equally near deaf person, this little disaster is a laugh to sit through - be sure to watch for the cleverly crafted editing, choreographed dance and fight scenes, effects and of course the stylized lighting and cinematic camera work.

This is an ideal movie to show to film students on how NOT to do a movie.

With the performances who are classically trained by a cement block and the dialogue and action scenes written for a tree stump, this movie kept me entertained due to it's sheer silliness and totally devoid story.

So bad - it's bad, so it's good...if that makes any sense.

The amazing Rena Riffel has concocted something so awful that it becomes something so funny, because nobody would seriously consider this to be anything but a joke...and it got her another writer/director/producer/performer credit - and in a town of celebrities, this gives her slightly a leading edge - though her next few en-devours may want to be of significantly better quality and structure in all capacity.

Literally the worst thing I've ever seen

[tshullin-300-167277 · 1/10 · 27 May 2023]

Where the hell does Rena think she can act and let alone direct a film?? This literally looked and felt like someone had a 1980's VHS camcorder on their shoulder and told someone to to say some lines for a school project.

Zero story. Terrible acting. Terrible Audio. It was laughable and embarrassing. How did a studio approve this?

I've done high school school projects that looked and s ounded better than this. Now I'm upset with myself for trying to sit through this for over two hours!!

The T & A was not worth it. Trust me.

I'm dumbfounded how this got through the editing process. Were they all just laughing on how stupid this was?

A bizarre fever dream

[lidjungle · 3/10 · 3 February 2024]

Yes, I watched all 2 1/2 hours of this film with my wife.

TLDR; Is it enjoyable? Yes. In a bad movie way.

The film starts slow... But soon turns into one of the most disjointed, bizarre, over the top attempts to make a movie, and I still have no idea if Rena Riffel intended to make a comedy or drama.

There's a running plot about "Penny" now Helga wanting to be in some sort of softcore TV revue? And she need to take ballet lessons at Juliard "or something" to make this work? Helga is monumentally dumb, but it's hard to tell if this is being played for laughs or not.

She meets the crazily busty older stripper who plays the Gina Gershon role here. Man, this lady butchers some screen time before she chews it up. After 2 hours, I was enamored with her completely hyperbolic performance. She managed to top Elizabeth Berkely for delivering all of her lines dialed up to 11. The scene where she freaks out with the cold cream... There are scenes in this movie that will live in your brain.

Yes, there's nudity. The tone veers like a drunken teenager driving. Scenes go from two girls getting sensual over giant hot dogs to Penny talking about losing custody of her daughter and back again in under a minute. No one behaves rationally. The camerawork is film noir one second, Dutch angles the next, and stationary home movie at random. Random living rooms and restaurants are played off as swanky strip clubs. The music is just AWFUL.

I have to give a individual paragraph to the outfits. Some of the most gloriously trashy clothing known to man. Even when there isn't nudity, the skimpy outfits provide plenty of titillation.

But there a certain charm that comes from the effort here. From long weirdly philosophical monologues, the (at times) hallucinogenic sets and backgrounds, and general poorly performed weirdness.

This is not a good movie. It's not a competent attempt at filmmaking. It has no point, no through plot, no sense of style. But it was enjoyable. It was campy, bizarre, maybe even a little sexy at times. I'd sit and watch it again.

Bad, and not in a fun campy way either.

[travinitrav · 25 November 2012]

I really don't think we needed a sequel to the awful Showgirls almost 20 years after the fact.

Imagine Showgirls horrible acting and nonsense plot only even worse, along with a home camcorder and no budget for effects or proper editing. The video is horrible, the sound is horrible, it doesn't even have the hint of sensuality that Showgirls 1 failed to ultimately deliver. The only redeeming feature of this film is Rena Riffel looks just as good as she did back then, possibly even better. If this had been a little campier it could have gone into cult status. As such its just a really bad amateur film the world never needed.

If you need a T&A fix there's better movies, not the least of which is the unrated Showgirls.

Preview told me all I needed to know

[jharen-68441 · 19 September 2018]

I only discovered there was a "sequel" to showgirls today, 23 years after the original and only by accident. After seeing a the preview of the movie i knew this was one to stay away from. In just those three minutes i wished i was blind and deaf. I don't know if some of the previous actors (not including rena riffel) needed a small hobby to do or if they thought they were doing her a favor but having them in the cast did not help at all. ( glenn plummer, greg travis, and dewey webber) it is horrible. Dont waste even the few minutes of your life trying to watch the previews because you wont get those back.