Showgirls (1995)

Showgirls (1995)

GENRESDrama
LANGEnglish
ACTOR
Elizabeth BerkleyKyle MacLachlanGina GershonGlenn Plummer
DIRECTOR
Paul Verhoeven

SYNOPSICS

Showgirls (1995) is a English movie. Paul Verhoeven has directed this movie. Elizabeth Berkley,Kyle MacLachlan,Gina Gershon,Glenn Plummer are the starring of this movie. It was released in 1995. Showgirls (1995) is considered one of the best Drama movie in India and around the world.

All alone in the world, Nomi Malone, making her way to Las Vegas, is determined to make a name as a dancer while putting her unspoken past behind her. Her tough, streetwise veneer is not as infallible as she would like, she, as she arrives in Vegas, becoming more cautious in the way she approaches strangers who seem willing to help her purely out of the goodness of their heart. Her talent and connections in combination are only able to get her a job at the Cheetah Club, a strip joint. Her first true friend in Vegas, Molly Abrams, works as the costumer for Goddess, the topless production at the Stardust. It is through Molly that Nomi catches the eye of Goddess' headliner, Cristal Connors. Nomi has a love/hate feeling toward Cristal: she doesn't much like her but wants to become her. Being at the Stardust, Nomi also catches the eye of Cristal's boyfriend, Zack Carey, Stardust's entertainment director. Through these contacts, Nomi is presented opportunity after opportunity to be part of ...

More

Showgirls (1995) Reviews

  • A Misunderstood Classic

    droberts@imdb2000-08-09

    Calling Showgirls "poorly acted" or "sexist" completely misses the point; it's like accusing Britney Spears of not being a "real musician," as though you've discovered something. Of *course* Showgirls is exploitative and demeaning to women. Almost all Hollywood movies are demeaning to women. Almost all of them are male-written, male-directed male fantasies. But most of them cover this fact with a thin veneer of "empowerment" and "sensitivity," making perfunctory, surface concessions to political correctness. It's hypocritical, dishonest and has horrible long-term effects on the psyches of young impressionable girls (and boys). The brilliance of Showgirls is that it gathers all of the worst Hollywood masculine excess and throws it unapologetically in our faces. The movie is straight-from-the-id, primal, brutish male fantasy. Every woman in the movie is a laughable caricature who advances, if at all, by deceiving other women and becoming a sexual object for men. The "heroine," Nomi, crosses every line, sells every shred of dignity, physically assaults her female competitors, sleeps with her boss (in the most over-the-top sex scene in cinematic history), gets her best friend raped... and at the end of the film, claims that she has gambled and won "herself." This tragi-comic nod to empowerment is a slap to the face of anyone who's been paying attention. Whether Esterhauz and Verhoeven intended it as such, Showgirls is at once a camp classic and a sly satire, an example of everything our culture at once wallows in and disavows. Sure, you can react with righteous indignation, waggle your finger at the movie, and pat yourself on the back for being so enlightened. But maybe you should take a look around, at the billboards, the commercials, the sitcoms, the movies, the music videos, your own prejudices... and think about whether you can't find a better target.

    More
  • Read between the lines!

    candigrrl2001-11-14

    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.

    More
  • Beyond the Valley of the Showgirls

    GroovyDoom2003-05-02

    Every once in a while, a film comes along that strikes a chord with audiences in such a way that they react strongly; sometimes, because of this, the film can become a hit. The opposite can happen as well. "Showgirls" drew some venomous reviews from both critics and audiences, and it quickly gained a reputation as a bad movie--it became a buzzword and a joke immediately. An entire generation of filmgoers who were too young to see "Showgirls" (or else uninterested in it) were instructed that it was a bad movie when it was mentioned as such in the all-ages trailer for the big hit "Scream 2". More recently, people like Tarantino and a few respected film critics began to admit that they loved the film, and while it's never going to gain acceptance as a serious film, at least people are able to see "Showgirls" for what it is instead an opinion based on legend. Yes, "Showgirls" is trashy and absurd, but we do enjoy those kinds of films. Are we saying that it's wrong to make them? I think the main problem with "Showgirls" is that it's a great looking, big budget film that is a pastiche at heart. Whatever people were expecting at the time of its release, they were definitely not expecting a new "Beyond the Vally of the Dolls" (which, like "Showgirls", got the strongest possible rating at the time of its release). Also similar to Russ Meyer, Verhoeven takes Joe Esztherhas's crazy script and directs his actors to be straight faced at all times, saying these lines as if they mean it. Just like in 1970, this defied the expectations of the audience, and it got the movie panned. Whatever Paul Verhoeven intended with this film, it's hard to imagine that this happened accidentally, and even the people who claim to like "Showgirls" because it's "so bad" are missing the point just a little. I think the bizarre qualities of the film are mostly intentional, and it doesn't stray too far in style from successful films Verhoeven made before this, mostly "Basic Instinct". In fact, it seems to me that the only true bungling has been MGM's marketing. Even now, as they reap the benefits of it being a cult classic that has sold extremely well on home video, their idea of how to round out the DVD edition is to get somebody totally uninvolved with the film to deliver a sometimes amusing but otherwise unnecessary commentary about the obvious instead of paying Elizabeth Berkley a couple thousand dollars to offer her own commentary on the film, which would have been a couple thousand times better. Eszterhas writes trashy movies intended to be a good time, and "Showgirls" is certainly that. But I can't imagine Verhoeven thinking that this movie would connect with audiences on a large scale basis; the trailers implied that "Showgirls" would be similar to "Basic Instinct", which it is not. Maybe if this movie had come later, after another failed attempt to recreate "Basic Instinct", people might have accepted it as its own type of film. The dialog is way over the top, and how utterly boring would the movie have been otherwise? Other parts of the film are marvelously conceived, and Verhoeven keeps the film in motion at all times. The only thing that truly spoils the fun is a violent rape scene, although it does fit with the reptilian tone of the movie, full of victims and victimizers; it is the one thing that grounds the film in the real world with real violence. It may not have been intentional, but it presents an interesting concept: if the rape had happened to any other character, it would not have been the same. Because it happens to the film's only sympathetic character, it carries a great impact. The cinematography is flawless, and the sets are always interesting and sometimes funny (like the bizarre stage numbers). Pay attention to the soundtrack as well, Verhoeven has an excellent collection of songs, many of them written specifically for the film. Watching Elizabeth Berkley's career self-destruct on camera is one of the film's most morbidly fascinating pleasures. I beg to differ with people who call her performance "bad"; what actress could have played this part and made it anything other than what Berkley did? The truth is, she worked wonders with a character that was impossible to play. Her dancing is both ridiculous and a marvel. How she can bend herself into those positions and hit those marks, not to mention her famous lap dance gyrations, must be seen to be believed. Gina Gershon is great too, a leering predator who manages to be both vulnerable and invincible at the same time, and only because she seems to be the only actor in the troupe that's in on the joke. Kyle McLachlan is skeezy, with a haircut and a smile that make him resemble the creature from the "ALIEN" franchise more than a human being. You expect an inner jaw to emerge from his mouth at any moment. "Showgirls" is ridiculous, but to me it's also multifaceted and fascinating, appealing to the cynic in all of us. It fails as an engaging story, but the film itself doesn't fail to engage the viewer at all; you can laugh at it (or with it), and it accomplishes something subversive in the way it makes you consider the filmmakers and actors involved. I think most people just say "Showgirls" is a bad movie because they've already been told it's a bad movie. I revisit it more often than some of the other films in my collection, and it gets more absurd, funny, gross, and sometimes even beautiful, every time I watch it. Bad movies are boring movies. "Showgirls" is not.

    More
  • Not as bad as all that

    alxvy2004-12-18

    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.

    More
  • i loved this piece of crap

    nobbytatoes2005-09-12

    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.

    More

Hot Search