X
- 1995
- R
- 2 h 8 m
- 1995
- R
- 2 h 8 m
Summary Seduction, passion and power struggles unfold as the creators of "Basic Instinct" blow the lid off the seemingly glamorous world of Las Vegas showdancing in this controversial film that stars Elizabeth Berkley. [MGM]
Directed By: Paul Verhoeven
Written By: Joe Eszterhas
- 1995
- R
- 2 h 8 m
- 1995
- R
- 2 h 8 m
Showgirls
20
2.8
Where to Watch
Summary Seduction, passion and power struggles unfold as the creators of "Basic Instinct" blow the lid off the seemingly glamorous world of Las Vegas showdancing in this controversial film that stars Elizabeth Berkley. [MGM]
Directed By: Paul Verhoeven
Written By: Joe Eszterhas
Where to Watch
Top Cast
Metascore
Generally Unfavorable
Based on 19 Critic Reviews
20
5% Positive
1 Review
1 Review
32% Mixed
6 Reviews
6 Reviews
63% Negative
12 Reviews
12 Reviews
Metascore
Generally Unfavorable
Based on 19 Critic Reviews
20
5% Positive
1 Review
1 Review
32% Mixed
6 Reviews
6 Reviews
63% Negative
12 Reviews
12 Reviews
In its depiction of the Las Vegas nightclub scene and in its own cinematic strategies, the film is quite instructive about the intersection of sex, money, and entertainment in some areas of popular American culture. [29 Sept 1995]
User Score
Generally Unfavorable
Based on 161 User Ratings
2.8
19% Positive
31 Ratings
31 Ratings
14% Mixed
23 Ratings
23 Ratings
66% Negative
107 Ratings
107 Ratings
User Score
Generally Unfavorable
Based on 161 User Ratings
2.8
19% Positive
31 Ratings
31 Ratings
14% Mixed
23 Ratings
23 Ratings
66% Negative
107 Ratings
107 Ratings
Time for a total re-evaluation. Yes, SHOWGIRLS is a cult camp classic but it is also a serious meditation on the American obsession with money, power and sex, and how the three are inexorably intertwined in our decadent, vulgar, and puritanical culture. SHOWGIRLS beautifully creates a frenzied environment that could only exist in the **** known as Las Vegas. SHOWGIRLS is as American as an apple pie in the face with a brutal series of final scenes that totally spoil all the fun. That's intentional too and makes for a brilliant sort of satire of "America" with a capital "A."
Report
If the plot and screenplay are juvenile, the production values are first-rate, and the lead performance by newcomer Elizabeth Berkley has a fierce energy that's always interesting.
This film is just a coarser, dumber, smuttier remake of the 1983 Eszterhas-penned "Flashdance," throbbing music, working-class Cinderella and all.
The film makers had declared they were bravely exploring new levels of licentiousness, but the biggest risk they've taken here is making a nearly $40 million movie without anyone who can act. The absence of both drama and eroticism turns Showgirls into a bare-butted bore.
There's nothing even mildly intriguing, or remotely galvanizing, about Showgirls.
The story is so shabbily built that it can make no valid claim to motives other than the filmmakers' mercenary desires to cash in on the public's prurient interests. And even on this bottom-feeder level, Showgirls fails to deliver the goods.
I am first of all going to point out what everyone else so has failed to do. Which is, point out that this film is LOADED with feminist ideas. It's worth noting that the only positive review by an actual critic is also by a woman. Coincidence? My basic contention is that this film is merely masquerading as a high-camp sexploitation "comedy" (I didn't find it that funny). Instead, I found myself mostly admiring the protagonist, and at the point where your sympathy begins to wane, the film skillfully manipulates you once again back into that position. In a sense, this woman is a precursor to Joss Whedon's relaunch of Buffy, only this girl is more vulnerable, 'damaged', real. Secondly, if this really were a "man's" film, would literally EVERY single man in it be a giant sleezing, exploitative, repulsive d-bag? There is literally not one straight man in the film who is not completely abhorrent. Chris Katan has a brief scene as one of the **** male dancers, and all he does is make fun of another guy for being chauvinistic. And never are any of them 'forgiven' or presented sympathetically for the viewer to redeem.
• People are making the mistake that this film is supposed to be 'erotic'. It's not about eros, it's about exploitation, especially male exploitation of women—but not for the film. You'll notice that all the breasts and sex in the film function not to titillate the viewer, but to illustrate that every single one of them are doing this for economic advantage and are part of an exchange process. The film's protagonist is struggling to stay above what is regarded socially as the lowest rung of this economic ladder, and her attempts to hold onto dignity and respect are almost microcosmic precursors to the Slutwalk movement which demands the same thing. Furthermore, as a Canadian viewing this film, I find it particularly ironic the continual condemnation by critics of the prevalent presence of breasts—which, here, are perfectly legal and uncontroversial. Already armed with this disposition, it was perfectly obvious that they aren't there for me, the viewer's enjoyment—they're there because these are women who are *working* in an environment which demands it, and this film is about the difficulty existing in such an environment. Now, I would never actually give this film a "10"—but I am, for the purposes of improving its Metacritic rating, which I think is quite low. Oh, and at 2hrs11min long, really: would a be that long? Think about it.
Report
I really watch the movie on TV and it nearly killed Elizabeth Berkley's career for good reason. Sure, Showgirls is a cult classic, but some critics find it obscure why NC-17 films can't even make it to a major wide release unless it's still an R-rated raunchfest. I'm definitely agree with the critics including the late Roger Ebert. Showgirls was like the soft-core erotica of the 90's with little known but finds very unsatisfied for horny men wanting to show a little bit of nudity and some **** scenes and finds itself on the VHS bargain bin. I still hate this movie. I hate the acting, I hate the script, I really hate it when they added nudity. Nobody wants to see that mess. How come a RoboCop director directed this stinker, anyway?
Report
Eh....I don't find this movie so sexy. I'm a dude, and I guess I'm suppose to say this is so erotic and watch it over and over again just to see some seductive garbage. But this was just very disturbing. I'll admit that Elizabeth Berkeley who was also from "Saved by the Bell" is very attractive, but her acting is like she's trying to be sexy. As gorgeous as she is, it didn't help out a lot. She shows her **** many times. I'll be honest as a man, I always wanted to see her boobs. But after the 3rd time, it got really tiring very fast. My reaction was, (YES, she has nice t*ts, enough!) **** plot was so disturbing. I just don't understand what the plot this is trying to show me, its just bizarre. This was really hard for me to sit through, it's not worth the time....okay, maybe just one sit through the movie if you like bizarre erotic films with lots of stripping, Elizabeth Berkeley's t*ts and lap dance, weird sex and mediocre softcore porn.
Report
Production Company
Carolco Pictures,
Chargeurs,
United Artists,
Vegas Productions
Release Date Sep 22, 1995
Duration 2 h 8 m
Rating R
Genres
Tagline Sex, seduction and betrayal.
Awards
Razzie Awards
• 8 Wins & 15 Nominations
The Stinkers Bad Movie Awards
• 1 Win & 3 Nominations
Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association Awards
• 1 Win & 1 Nomination
