Showgirls

WARNING: This review is hidden because it reveals the content of the film.
Click here to show this review. If you know bad movies, you’re surely heard of “Showgirls”. I assure you that everything you’ve heard about it is true. It’s seedy, sleazy, horrendously written, over-the-top, and more. The real question is, can you enjoy it as a bad movie? Well… that depends on you. Curious? Read on.

Nomi Malone (Elizabeth Berkley) is a young drifter who has made her way to Las Vegas to be a showgirl. It’s easier said than done. Despite befriending a seamstress named Molly (Gina Ravera) after being robbed, Vegas is quick to chew you up and spit you out. And then there’s the showgirl scene, where the women wear hardly anything but manage to hide their conniving ways nonetheless.

“Showgirls” is a sight to behold. It features lines of dialogue like ‘How does it feel not to have anybody come on you anymore’ and long exchanges where women describe how envious they are of each other’s tits. It’s not only bad; it’s unbelievably bad. I have no idea how director Paul Verhoeven and writer Joe Eszterhas could look at the script or at footage produced and not exclaim, “Wait a second, human beings don’t talk like this! Let’s try that again! ” I’m used to seeing bad films. The best part of a picture like 2006’s “Wicker Man”, “Black X-Mas” or “Miami Connection” is slipping in stupid comments or absurd responses to the characters’ dialogue to make the ridiculous picture that much more ridiculous. It’s impossible with “Showgirls”. No matter how loony your ideas are, the film’s already got you beat. All you can do is sit silently; dumbfounded that yes, they went that far.

“Showgirls” is bad in a multitude of ways. I’ve discussed the dialogue, and let me assure you, the performances match the clunky writing. What surprised me most about the film is how numbing it all is. There’s so much nudity present that eventually, your mind develops antibodies that negate any appeal the bare flesh would normally have. It reminds me of when I used to work at the video rental store and I’d have to test the adult movies that customers told us skipped. Sure when you’re 19 and your “homework” is to bring videos of naked people home you might be excited at first, but when there are no surprises and the sex goes on and on, you eventually start looking forward to the bits where people talk while fully dressed. With that said, there is one big sex scene that you’ve got to see to believe. It appears that for these few minutes Verhoeven let his 13-year-old nephew direct. I say this not only because of the abundant nudity present but also because the baffling gyrating and pelvic movements on display. It makes me wonder if the person supervising the scene ever had sex.

I’m glad I saw “Showgirls” and did draw amusement from it. Mostly from the fact that yes, they go “there” every time and from the abundant number of scenes so terrible you can’t believe it’s true. The question I have to ask myself now is “Is this movie worth re-watching? ” I’m not sure yet. Yes, it’s a sight to behold. It’s a beautiful catastrophe; a film that does absolutely everything wrong, but technically is professionally made. What makes me wonder if I’ll be watching this bad film over and over like “Night Claws” or “Cobra” is that it 1) is somewhat immune to riffing and 2) contains a pointless and unpleasant gang rape scene right towards the end. With the film ultimately delivering a message that everyone knows already, I think this film belongs in a different category of “So Bad it’s good Movie”. I compare this one to “Branded”, a film so crazy no description can truly encompass the experience it generates and so puzzling to watch you’ve kind of got to see it… but only the one time.

“Showgirls” is a sight to behold. A disaster so thorough it demands to be viewed… if bad movies are your kind of thing. Myself, I don’t know how to feel about it in the end. It’s so sleazy it pushes through and becomes something entirely new. What that is exactly, I have no idea. (On DVD, October 14, 2016)