Showgirls

Rating:
Summary: Hot, steamy, sexy with great choreography
Review: The choreography and dance sequences in this movie are awesome!!

And I love watching gorgeous nude and semi-nude human bodies in motion. And there are some great provocative scenes in this movie.

The story is a little corny and unbelievable. For example there is this scene in the very beginning of the movie where this big brute of a guy gets a little fresh with the heroine of this story, Naomi and she scares him off with a switchblade. In real life, that big burly guy would have made her eat that switchblade! She should have been packing a .45 Smith and Wesson. There are some other unlikely events in the story, too.
She is supposed to have been running the streets and hitchhiking. But she is too beautiful to have been living that kind of life! Real women that have been living a hard life like Naomi is supposed to have look like they have been living a hard life -- they resemble Charlize Theron in the movie "Monster".

Ah! But this is Hollywood! (or rather, Las Vegas)

Oh well, despite its faults, the movie shines in its dance choreography and eroticism.

At the end, Verhoeven gets up on his soap box and asks the question, "What would you do for fame?" "Would you do anything to get to the top?" I guess with all the sensuality and striptease, he has to throw in a little moral to the story.

Rating:
Summary: THIS IS SO BAD.
Review: SHOWGIRLS is so bad, I've watched it 4 times (including paying to see it opening weekend in 1994) just to see if it gets better. It doesn't, Liz Berkley and the VIP Room lap dance sequence aside. Only Gina Gershon has the right idea here: camp it up, cash your check and move on to star in BOUND (1995). Atleast the Forum Shops at Caesars Palace look great.

Rating:
Summary: Girls Show Best of the Worst
Review: Nobody would ever mistake "Showgirls" for "Gone With the Wind." It is by all rights the best little worst movie ever made. Bad acting, bad script, poor direction, mixed with silly but lavish production numbers, a great deal of nudity, simulated sex acts, and foul language make this film fun to watch. Liz Berkley literally shed her good girl image in just 3 minutes of screen time. I knew from the get go this was a cult movie from the start. Now, we have a VIP Edition, complete with pastys, shot glasses, and deck (or should I say dick) cards. No true collector of cult movies, or collectors sets can not own this movie. A guilty pleasure.

Rating:
Summary: Good for Cult Movie Fans and 12 year old boys
Review: This movie is not good but I was entertained by it in that cult movie way.Yes, there is some naked women,but not muchand it was done kind of tastefully.I have seen much worse on cinemax and HBO.It is sad to see that Elizabeth Berkley's acting skills are sompletely horrible in this film and the director should share the blame for that.The story is simple.Real simple.

Rating:
Summary: Magnificently bad
Review: This might have been just another young-girl-follows-her-dreams-to-the-big-city-only-to-lose-everything-yet-discover-her-true-self story. But Eszterhas and Verhoeven ensure that "Showgirls" is at least more memorable than that. Violent over-acting, jaw-droppingly bad dialogue, and a narrative radiantly free of plot will have these 131 minutes of celluloid burned agonizingly into your cortex for all eternity. Others have defended this film as a brilliant satire of American culture along the lines of "Starship Troopers". But the battery of ludicrous sex scenes, flailing pudenda, and languorous lesbian kisses give the game away: perhaps the crowning achievement of the Hollywood erotic-thriller sub-genre, "Showgirls" unwittingly exposes it for what it always was - an excuse to fill the screen with a few dozen pair of admittedly shapely and extremely well-lit breasts. What I want to know is how they all did it without laughing - especially Eszterhas, who apparently got paid $2 million for his "work". Can I have that job? Please?!

Rating:
Summary: And We Wonder Why...
Review: Why women are continually looked upon as sex object and why they continually get assulted....good grief people, why do we wonder about these things? Women, KEEP YOUR FRICKING CLOTHES ON!

Rating:
Summary: IT'S NOT CLASSIC CINEMA... BUT IT IS ENTERTAINING!
Review: The only thing stopping me from giving it 4 stars is the casting of the lead role. With all the beautiful starlets in Hollywood, why Elizabeth Berkley was chosen is beyond my level of comprehension. As a former strip club DJ, I can tell you that, from a strictly physical standpoint, she's just not believable in this role. Why? Although Berkley isn't unattractive, she just doesn't have what it takes to convincingly come across as a dancer with a realistic shot at the big time; not only is Berkley small-chested and lacking in firmness, she also has that unattractive combination of wide hips/flat ass. That said, her acting isn't quite as bad as some reviewers will have you believe - I've seen much worse. Assuming that the lead role was being cast within a limited budget, I think someone along the lines of Elisabeth Shue, Jennifer Love-Hewitt or even a total unknown would have been an all-around better choice for this kind of film.