Review: Showgirls (1995)

Showgirls (1995)

Alright, so one of the criticisms I constantly receive is that I generally only review good (or very good) films. Well, for those of you who have been conveyors of this comment - here's a film for you.

Showgirls is, without a doubt, one of the most infamous films of all-time. For its time it had, on paper, everything going for it - one of the hottest directors and hottest writers working then, a potential new star coming out of a huge sitcom (and paired with a few other rising actors/actresses), and a story set within an industry ripe for Hollywood potential - sexy, sultry and seedy Vegas dancing. Unfortunately, things did not exactly work out for the film. Showgirls tanked financially and, even more-so, critically. Showgirls received seven Razzies that included Worst Picture, Worst Actress, Worst Screenplay, Worst Screen Couple and Worst New Star. Quite the commendable set of accolades. Star of the film, Elizabeth Berkley, personal recipient of a number of those awards, likely took the largest hit from the film as Showgirls sadly ended any potential she may have had for a successful career. Writer, Joe Eszterhas, who was at-the-time one of the highest paid writers in Hollywood, has essentially not had a film made since Showgirls. Only director, Paul Verhoeven, and stars Kyle MacLachlan and Gina Gershon have maintained solid careers since the film. Recently, the film has been held to be one of, if not THE, worst film of all-time, or at least of the 20th century. It really has quite the legacy.

Now, to get back to the film itself. Showgirls follows Nomi Malone (Berkley) as she chases her American dream, moving to Las Vegas in order to succeed in the world of 'exotic dancing'. Yes, that means she must start out as a stripper in a seedy club. BUT, she has aspirations - a dream to become a more artful dancer for one of the casino's big-time shows... where she would still be dancing naked and in erotic fashion. You go girl. As you can imagine, there is a lot of nudity in this film... as in, the film probably does not go more than seven minutes without nudity of some kind. As well, on top of the nudity there is ample sex and explicit material - some of which is described in the most comically-crass of ways. Actually, a lot of the dialogue throughout the film is absurdly hilarious (i.e. two characters sharing a bonding moment over eating dog food...). This brings me to my next point...

Showgirls is a film that has long been misunderstood. Most see it as a poorly written, poorly conceived drama, one lacking tact of any kind. However, as Verhoeven has stated, Showgirls is a satire. Its outlandishness, its crassness, and its 'sloppiness' are all intended aspects, and are all likely, in some way, reflective aspects of the industry that Showgirls is centred upon. Could the film have had a better script? Absolutely. Could some of the performances been tapered a bit? Probably. But no one is, or probably ever will, call it a perfect film. It is what is, and what it is, is likely not 'the worst film of all-time' as it has been referred to. For those that have yet to see it, check it out and let me know what you think. And for everyone else, I'll see you at Cheetah's.