>
Vile, contemptible, garish, and misogynistic -- and that might just be exactly Showgirls' point. Read critic reviews
What to know
You might also like
See More
Poison Ivy
Foxfire
Suicide Kings
Instinct
Mary Reilly
Rate And Review
-
What did you think of the movie? (optional)
You're almost there! Just confirm how you got your ticket.
You're almost there! Just confirm how you got your ticket.
What did you think of the movie? (optional)
How did you buy your ticket?
-
Fandango
-
AMCTheatres.com or AMC AppNew
-
Cinemark Coming Soon
We won’t be able to verify your ticket today, but it’s great to know for the future.
-
Regal Coming Soon
We won’t be able to verify your ticket today, but it’s great to know for the future.
-
Theater box office or somewhere else
Showgirls Photos
Movie Info
Nomi (Elizabeth Berkley) arrives in Las Vegas with only a suitcase and a dream of becoming a top showgirl. She quickly befriends Molly (Gina Ravera), who works at the high-profile Stardust Hotel, and lands a job at a seedy strip club. A chance meeting with Cristal (Gina Gershon), the Stardust's marquee dancer, and her powerful boyfriend, Zack (Kyle MacLachlan), brings Nomi one step closer to realizing her dream. But, as she ascends to the top, Nomi begins to wonder if it's all worth it.
-
Rating: NC-17
-
Genre: Drama, Lgbtq+
-
Original Language: English
-
Director: Paul Verhoeven
-
Producer: Charles Evans
-
Writer: Joe Eszterhas
-
Release Date (Theaters): original
-
Release Date (Streaming):
-
Box Office (Gross USA): $19.3M
-
Runtime:
-
Distributor: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, MGM/UA Home Entertainment Inc., United Artists
-
Production Co: United Artists, Carolco Pictures Inc.
-
Sound Mix: Surround
Cast & Crew
News & Interviews for Showgirls
Critic Reviews for Showgirls
Audience Reviews for Showgirls
-
If Verhoeven's intention was to make a satire of Las Vegas as a place of exploitation and hypocrisy then his film is brilliant, but it does feel like he is trying to make something serious, which makes its hilarious campy vibe come off as trashy and completely unintentional.
-
One of the most notorious box office bombs, Showgirls is a satirical exploitation film from Paul Verhoeven. The story follows a drifter named Nomi who hitchhikes to Las Vegas and struggles to become a dancer for a high-profile burlesques show at the prestigious Stardust casino. The plot is ridiculously stupid and poorly written; especially the dialog (which is atrocious). And Elizabeth Berkley's performance is awful; as the she comes off as violently schizophrenic. Additionally, the gratuitous nudity is tasteless and vulgar. An insipid piece of garbage, Showgirl is spectacularly bad.
-
<i>"I like tits and ass. Mostly tits."</i> <b>- Factual philosphical wisdom by the deep Paul Verhoeven</b> All post-Denmark Verhoeven flicks are, by thematic definition, satires. If one doesn't understand that intention, it is hard to grasp the ironic subtext that pervades his graphic Hollywood scandals. <i>Showgirls</i>, in this sense, is a misunderstood "bad" movie, so bad it's underrated. The people's obsession with the <i>All About Eve</i> plot parallelism is hilarious. So here we have Verhoeven, as aggressive as the reputation that precedes him, attempting to propel adult cinema with a big-scale budget, resulting in a rather financial disaster and a simultaneous terrible reception that discouraged similar big-budget productions in the future. Was the outcome really that bad? Not really. After all, in the middle of the 90s, nobody except probably Verhoeven realized that they had a movie of cult proportions in hands. The first barrier that people must take off their minds is that this is intentionally bad. <b>It was never meant to be a serious drama</b>, like several false claims invading Internet are saying. The second barrier that must come off is that it wasn't meant to be an expensive softcore movie, either. The film just takes a (long) glance at the backstage of the adult Las Vegas entertainment scene, with a familiar mechanism of dog-eat-dog culture and a predatory environment, but that's just the cover up. The real issue is Verhoeven's ability to castrate "cinematic quality" standards and challenging them with a substance behind strong enough to be satirical and to be both laughed at and be laughed with. Third, Verhoeven is renowned for pushing all celluloid boundaries possible and confidently displaying them within the widescreen capabilities. One of the intents was to be so over-the-top and shamelessly graphic that it would assure its permanent place in the mind (maybe not only in the mind) of the viewer. Intention accomplished! People are still talking about it, but not in a similar fashion that <i>The Room</i> (2003) receives discussion. No. The film's strength and core is its scandal. In a way, the terribleness of the delivery in the performances, dialogues, script and melodrama mirrors the terribleness of such a morally distorted world like the topless hell of Las Vegas. Indeed, I cannot fully approve a project that also, intentionally, objectifies women for the purpose of entertainment, unless the camp behind is epic enough to justify its cheap, cult and trashy mega-suckness, like the tradition of a Jess Franco, a <i>Sex & Fury</i> (1973) or a <i>Women in Cages</i> (1971) would dictate. Either there is some artistry behind, or the aforementioned aspects. Unfortunately, for me, the level of satire does not reach the brilliance of Verhoeven's other projects, so my reasons are merely thematic, and not artistic. It was a project of great potential, even as a strong social critique and punch to the face of mainstream moviewatching standards, but the opening quote of this review is a proof that, at some point, Verhoeven stopped working and his penis decided to direct in his place. Nominated for 16 awesome Razzie Awards, and getting home with 7, Verhoeven walkd out of the ceremony proudly. Just consider something: Paul Verhoeven turned up in person to accept Worst Director and Worst Picture. He was the first director to ever turn up to collect the Award. He was literally proud of himself, because such "triumph" was the proof that he had accomplished what he intended. Let's look at some facts and numbers, beautifully retrieved from IMDB: ? As of 2009, Showgirls is the highest grossing NC-17 of all time (U.S. <b>$20,302,961</b>) and the only NC-17 film to ever be given wide distribution in <b>1,388</b> theaters. ? Several high-ranking filmmakers such as <b>Quentin Tarantino</b> have professed their appreciation of the movie. ? Elizabeth Berkley was paid only <b>$100,000</b> for playing the lead in the film. When a special V.I.P. edition boxed set was released, she requested <b>$2,500</b> to be interviewed. LOL. ? Despite its apocalyptic reception at the box office, it enjoyed huge success in home video market in the United States, generating more than <b>$100,000,000</b> from video rentals and became one of MGM's <b>top 20</b> all-time bestsellers. ? The movie has its fans today, and receives cult following even today. ? The only time actresses complained that they felt uncomfortable was during the scenes with the monkeys, who constantly stared at their bare breasts. Sure thing, that was more uncomfortable than anything they did during shooting. Too bad that: a) It didn't fully trigger my cult camp interests! b) Its suckness was too much to handle, given the lack of a)! c) Charlize Theron auditioned for the role of Nomi Malone!! d) Pamela Anderson was a front-runner for the role of Nomi Malone!! e) Angelina Jolie auditioned for the role of Cristal Connors!! f) Gina Gershon declined to recreate the Sharon Stone leg crossing scene from <i>Basic Instinct</i> (1992)! Damn it, Verhoeven, you bloody idiot! 63/100
-
I'm undecided over whether or not the film is actually some brilliant satire (you can make strong arguments either way), but it's undeniably re-watchable and hilarious.
Verified