MovieChat Forums > Showgirls (1995) Discussion > ya know.... it wasn't HIDIOUS....

ya know.... it wasn't HIDIOUS....

posted 4 years ago by [deleted]
14 replies | jump to latest

never saw Shwogirls before. not into THAT "scene", or these types of movies. decided to watch it for all the bad press it gets.

No, it's not a good film, but I did feel like it covered the story content well. OBVIOUSLY, it could have been better, but I was expecting non-stop horrid dialog and terrible acting. Yeah, there was a little of that, but it wasn't non-stop. And if I let those characters be themselves as presented, their actions fit just fine.

not a fan of T&A films, but understood what part of that vegas life they were showing.
Its over and done, and never going to change, nor does it need remade.

That said, I think the STORY could have been told fine, and maybe better without the NC-17 T&A. There was a lot of T&A spectacle, that wasted a lot of time showing us the whole dance numbers (nekked) instead of making the characters better, plot better etc.

Whatever. I survived and having below zero expectations, it wasn't as horrible as I was imagining. I've literally seen worse NORMAL films. But, I understand the razzies, and have no interest in ever seeing it again.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

I thought it was pretty awful, a 3/10. What would you rate it out of 10?

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

3 seems about right. I mean the sets, lighting, cinematography, audio, makeup and all was perfect for what it did, so it needs a point for that. Maybe a 2 to 4 from me for the production quality.
Yeah, not saying film was actually good, it just wasn't as laughably bad as I was expecting.
The dancing looked pretty tight and well done. I admire all the effort that went into that.

Bad directing of actors (lead), and her zoned out look was not good :D

[–] redban (5233) 4 years ago

I too thought it wasn’t that bad, not the worst movie of all time (like many people say). The movie’s biggest strength are the visuals and atmosphere; they really captured the spirit and charm of Las Vegas. The outfits, the bright lights, the makeup, the dancing, the debauchery etc. I always get an urge to go back to Vegas after I see this movie or think about it.

That said — horrendous acting by many, including Elizabeth Berkeley (“different places!”). Gratuitous nudity and sex.

I give it a 5/10 or maybe, if generous, 6/10. It’s a C / C+ movie, not the abysmal D- or F that many think

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

exactly. I thought it captured what it was trying to do very well. The side actors did fine for their characters.

I was expecting a laughable train wreck with boobs and sex, and it did not deliver that. :D Well the boobs and sex were covered, but even that was not laughably bad - probably realistic for their portrals, I really wouldn't know.

[–] Utpe (658) 4 years ago

I give it a 5/10 or maybe, if generous, 6/10.

Rated it the same long ago (5/10). Didn't care about the acting in general. If anything, at least we got to see Elizabeth Berkley naked for the first time.

I'm so glad my uncle rented this on VHS in 1996 for my cousin and me. Probably as close to a "porno" as you were going to get back in those days.

It’s a C / C+ movie, not the abysmal D- or F that many think

Couldn't agree more.

[–] Kj1oceanlust (1418) 4 years ago

Elizabeth Berkley's tit pack and whisker biscuit made it worth while watching.

[–] PaladinNJ (20324) 4 years ago

It's not the worst film ever made.

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 4 years ago

It was even worse than I expected. If I had to make a list of worst films ever, I'd have to find a spot for this one.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Your opinion is fair enough. One could say that about any film that someone didn't care for, or maybe it wasn't a genre they ever enjoyed.

Did you not know it was bad going in?

I'd heard how awful it was, so many RAZZIES etc, was expecting it to be MUCH worse than it was.
If I was expecting it to be good, yes, it would be total garbage, but it was filmed well, good production quality, albeit some over the top pointless scenes.

[–] sslssg (28132) 4 years ago

I've seen it a few times over the years. I don't mind these types of movies, and think this one could have been so much better with a different actress. Berkley was just soooooo bad. They should have either gone all camp, or lost the camp completely, but I don't think it's the worst movie ever made. If I could give it a 2 for acting I would, but I also think that it's beautifully shot and would probably give it about a 7 on the technical side. Over all I'd probably rate it closer to 5, but I'm sure that's more wishful thinking.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

I'd read a thing where the director claimed full responsibility for her acting. I could see that. Not sure how good she is otherwise - have not seen her in much else, but, yes, maybe she is awful in anything? :D

[–] sslssg (28132) 4 years ago

I've seen her in a couple of other things, and I think that he was being kind. I'm sure he helped with some of the choices, but I also do not think that she was the right actress for the role.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

yes, that's true. after they revealed her past, I thought she was far to cleaned up looking, to be a dirty, used up, drugged up prostitute seeking a new life. WAY too clean looking.

[–] TheArgentinian (6461) 3 years ago

It's watchable, even entertaining. The rape scene killed the mood, though.