mimylovesjapan wrote:
Just saw Showgirls for the first time.
I thought it was a bad movie, then never watched it before.
I was impressed by the picture quality, and liked the cynical point of view of the movie.
It is a pretty good movie for me, and don't really understand why people don't like it.
I love Verhoven. And the only movie he doesn't I don't like is Basic Instinct, because Sharon Stone and Michael Douglas are so bad in my point of view.
I will post screens of the US LD (very beautiful edition !)
This is typically a movie "Americans don't get". The problem is Vegas showgirl acts are generally considered too absurd and too disgusting ("trashy" would be the word used to cover both) to qualify for satire.
Where Verhoeven and Eszterhas missed the mark was assuming too much show business familiarity in the audience. All the tacky infighting and self promotion in Showgirls, I believe, represents not only Hollywood and TV but also Broadway which seems to carry a lot of weight with Hollywood folk, if for no other reason than financial success. And for my money Broadway is tackier than anything Vegas puts out.
In short, I think it works, but just barely. It certainly kicks the teeth out of something like The Player.
signofzetaQuote:
Ok then explain this to me. Basic Instinct was at least as stupid as Showgirls but nobody ever treats it the same way. Why? It’s still considered an “erotic thriller” instead of a camp classic like Showgirls.
Basic Instict is a cop flick. Those always get a ton of leeway, and have since the earliest days through noir and on. I don't see it as campy, rather a very well directed and filmed snore.