This movie was a lose-lose situation: if it sucked (which many people thought that it did) then the reviews would be horrible. If it was good, it would be harshly reviewed anyway. Who really wants to be the critic to give it “two thumbs up” or “3-4 stars” when it’s premise is about a hot lady that shows her tits all through the movie? They won’t want to look like the pervert critic, so they will find a reason to dislike it.
share1) The tits in question are fake.
2) Wanting to see some boobies (fake or otherwise) doesn't make you a pervert.
3) Showgirls, a similar film, is now a cult classic so I guess this wasn't even remarkable enough to suck.
I get that wanting to see tits doesn’t make you a pervert. But if a critic gives it a good rating, that’s the impression that a lot of ‘less thoughtful people’ are going to have: “oh I bet they liked it cuz of the nudity”
shareMy heart breaks for Demi Moore, Burt Reynolds, Robert Patrick, Siobhan Fallan, Armand Assante, Ving Rhames, and Rumer Willis because those actors normally have a good rep.
And RIP to Burt Reynolds, he was awesome.
Yes, it had a chance. The book was deservedly popular, it was enjoyable and clever, and not about sleaze. The stripper heroine was presented as a likeable and sympathetic person, a regular Jane who needed money, and who'd turned to stripping because she was a good dancer. And that was one of the unusual things about the book, the heroine and her co-workers weren't presented as whores or "Other", they were shown as regular folks doing their job.
Of course the scriptwriter didn't get that, and neither did the director, producers, cinematographer, lead actress, and studio marketing department. They threw in all the sleaze that the book had carefully avoided.