| Home | Reviews | About | Contact Us |
(13/7/16)
“Showgirls provides an abundance of female nudity, sloppy and bizarre attitudes, and a flirtation with drugs and violence”
“Showgirls” is possibly one of the most outrageous and rambunctious movies I have ever seen. Though it grants itself a very controversial and lurid subject matter, inundating itself with breasts and sly humour, Paul Verhoeven once again promotes one of his own to cult-like status. Regardless of its reputation, “Showgirls” isn’t necessarily a movie which lacks acting or direction. In fact, knowing Verhoeven’s traits, “Showgirls” is yet just another feature from the Dutch director who has essentially exploited the ideas of hyperbole and over-exaggeration, much like Tarantino has. The outlandish sex and dance scenes, as well as the ones of violence, are satires of our real world red-light districts, the sex industries and city nightlife.
I had the very privilege of watching “Showgirls” in 35mm at The Prince Charles Cinema in Leicester Square, London, during an all-night showing of possibly Paul Verhoeven’s five greatest films (the others being Robocop (1987), Total Recall (1990), Basic Instinct (1992) and Starship Troopers (1997)). “Showgirls” certainly boded as the worst of the night. However, being projected in true 35mm format presented “Showgirls” in a different mood. It certainly felt like I was watching an exploitation B-movie you’d find in a grind-house theatre in the US. It’s not meant to be taken seriously, and given its repetitive nature of nudity and as a fairly dire success story – from stripper to showgirl – my lasting impressions of the film was that it was fun, but nothing more. I cannot conclusively render it a particularly good film, far from it actually, as the very deviant nature of “Showgirls” preys out many unnecessary flaws and hiccups that are even replicated in more mainstream and modern movies such as The Wolf of Wall Street (2013). We will talk about such instances throughout the review.
Brushed over briefly, “Showgirls” follows the story of Nomi Malone (Elizabeth Berkley), a lone drifter who moves up within the Las Vegas dance scene from a stripper in the measly Cheetah’s Topless Club to the opulent burlesque Stardust stage show. The latter is fronted by the popular Cristal Connors, who, despite her crass and dejected comments towards Nomi upon meeting, eventually asks her to audition for the chorus line of Goddess. This is done after Cristal and her boyfriend Zack Carey receive a rather pricey lap-dance from her at Cheetah’s, exhibiting her moves and the greater potential she has when it comes to dancing. In spite of Nomi’s temperamental behavioral problems, the only person keeping her going is Molly Abrams, the first person she comes across in Vegas and the one who offered her refuge in her trailer home. Also somewhat helping her along her way is James Smith, an odd-job worker who obviously has admiration for Nomi but her attitude gets the better of her throughout the movie, and as a result occasionally neglects him. But Nomi isn’t the hero in “Showgirls”, it is Molly. Without her, there would be no deus ex machina, no machine to get the ball going, no sense of inspiration for Nomi to get where she wants to be.
As Nomi gradually becomes broiled up in the new lavish lifestyle of fame, she begins to become more self-centred and arrogant as opposed to when we first see her. She begins to neglect Molly, her only true friend who aspired her to get to where she was. Her transition into megalomania is also coupled with her consequential flings with Zack, the Stardust’s wealthy entertainment director, which ultimately fuels her ego and causes adversity with Cristal. While “Showgirls” provides the relationship and character development, though meekly, it seriously dawdles when it comes to it subject matter. It has the style, but not the substance. It unleashes more of the same repetitive tendencies throughout the picture; the abundance of female nudity, the sloppy and bizarre attitudes, and a flirtation with drugs and violence (a switchblade is revealed only minutes into the movie). That’s why I explained this movie relates to the likes of movies such as The Wolf of Wall Street (2013) for its repetitive nature of more of the same stuff. There’s only a certain threshold you can endure until you become bored of it, and “Showgirls” does just that. Not only does it lack the digression into new plot points to spark fresh motives, the story is, in simplest terms, paper thin. Now don’t assume I don’t love movies that don’t have the most complex stories. More mainstream movies such as Gravity (2013), Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) and The Revenant (2015) may not have the most convoluted plots but they certainly have more appraisal when it comes to film-making achievements (and they are all movies I have profoundly enjoyed, even though I regarded The Revenant (2015) as ‘underwhelmingly magnificent’).
“Showgirls” certainly lives up to its exuberant and boisterous reputation. I can certainly see why it received cult-like status many years after it was made when it was released on VHS, but as explained earlier, Verhoeven is the pinnacle of popular cult film-making, alongside Fincher’s earlier filmography. “Showgirls” won’t be a movie I will be watching anytime soon, but it will remain to have a lasting impression on me.
Matthew Alfrey
| Home | Reviews | About | Contact Us |
Malfrey's Movie Madness 
One thought on “Showgirls (1995)”