Yet it still retains a 14% approval rating at rotten tomatos. Heck, the users gave it a mere 2.7 out of 10. People, for the most part, just don’t enjoy the movie.
[hijack - if the OP is happy]
From your prior review. I’m not familiar with the work of Sirk and Fassbinder, but I can’t see “most” of Hitchcock’s films as being about the power of female sexuality. Could you give examples of what you mean?
[/hijack]
Maybe “most” is overstating it; I haven’t really done a survey. But the Hitchcocks that rise to the surface–Vertigo, The Birds, Marnie, Notorious, Rebecca, Psycho, etc.–seem to many to hold femaleness in a kind of mythic awe.
lissener and Dex, I’m sure Yookeroo can come in and clarify himself, but based on the fact he specifically quoted the line which stated "My biggest problem with Verhoeven is his misanthropy. " it seemed clear that the “childish need to feel superiour” comment was in regards to Verhoeven. The simmering hostility in the retort is misplaced.
Either way it’s lost on me why this topic gets you so defensive and seemingly ready to lash out at anyone who disagrees with you. It’s a movie. You have a minority opinion that differs from many others but I’m not seeing anyone here (and largely in the other threads where this debate got ugly) attacking you or being dismissive of your opinion.
For me, the way you defend this movie as if it were a child of yours makes it difficult for me to listen to your opinions objectively. It’s just my perception of course, but if you’ll allow me to offer my unrequested advice, you may want to take a step back and realize that no ones critisizing you when they disagree with your assessment of Verhoeven’s talents.
I deleted “It’s just as revealing of me, that I get a kick out of this movie” just so I was clear I was only talking about Verhoeven and not Lissener. Guess it wasn’t clear enough.
And I would ask, in all seriousness, that you read again carefull. I have never gotten angry at ANYONE’S criticism of this movie. I have ONLY ever gotten defensive with the criticism turns personal, as in Yookeroo’s comparing me to to the people who PRETENDED to see the emperor’s clothes because they wanted to impress others with their intelligence.
This is not a criticism of the movie; it is a personal attack on my and my motivations for pretending to like the movie. Again, this is the ONLY thing I have ever been defensive about.
It’s when irresponsible accusations such as yours, Omniscient, get tossed lightly about, that these threads tend to go south. Because that’s when I feel compelled to defend myself. Again, please note that I am not defending the movie, I am defending myself against unwarranted accusations of dishonesty.
Now, can we return to the topic, and discuss the movie, and not each other’s perceived motivations?
To be clear, it was the accusation of dishonesty hidden in your “emperor’s new clothes” parallel I was defending against, not your criticism of Verhoeven, which I saw for what it was.
::: Moderator cracks whip ::::
In any case, this is ENOUGH.
If you want to question another poster’s motives, background, or tastes, do it in the Pit. This is a discussion about a movie, and there is no reason whatsoever for these personal flare-ups, on either side, to be occurring.
At the same time, this is very old hat. This horse has been dead for so long, it’s beyond stinking and over to fossilization. The OP has been answered, and links provided to lengthy and unsavory discussions. Let it go.
I have been asked to re-open the thread. I guess if it’s still being debated, then perhaps the horse is not as deceased as I thought.
Play nice. You may dis the director all you want, but you will be polite and well-mannered toward each other.
Who asked for the thread to be re-opened? You and I are the only participants online.
And I didn’t.
The request was from a REPORT BAD POST, and I will preserve the confidentiality of the two people who asked.
Mysteriouser and mysteriouser.
In this thread, you may discuss the film SHOWGIRLS. Speculation about the mysteries of life, who reported whom, who didn’t report whom, who requested what, and where Stapleton kept the hound during the day… all belong elsewhere.
Duke of Rat
Well, it’s good to see there’s another Gina Gershon fan around here.
Who the fuck cares what Voerhoven intended? He made a pretty good softcore flick and got some name actors to buy into it. What’s not to like? If Voerhoven were to get that stick out of his butt and like his characters more, he’d make a pretty good softcore filmmaker one day.
When I read something like this, I figure the author is spending way too much time watching movies, TV shows and such, and should get out in the fresh air and get some healthful exercise. Then I read in Artaud’s Wikipedia listing that he thought sexual activity, including masturbation, was harmful to the creative process. Well, yeah – if your idea of the creative process is sublimating your own sexuality and having it show up as a bunch of masturbatory glurge. I’ve written hard core porn that was less of a jerk-off than that Artaud quote.
This is how I (the OP-er) feel as well, having read this and the other linked threads. I’ll have to watch it thinking “Okay, this is by the same guy who did Starship Troopers.” I didn’t really realize that before.
And interestingly, Starship Troopers is a movie which I think is pretty smart, though in a way it doesn’t “look” so smart. Same with Showgirls? Maybe so.
I’ll ignore the reainder of your comments, Plynk. Just know they left me scratching my head…
-FrL-
I thought it was pretty much agreed that it was kept chained in a cave on the moors…
Oops, I’m in trouble, aren’t I? 
Anyway, to return to the OP. The argument that *Showgirls *is a “good” movie is based on the interpretation that there is more going on than the surface T&A. That, in fact, the surface T&A is an intentional smokescreen. Not many people would have a problem with the statement that Alfred Hitchcock’s The Birds isn’t really about birds. *Showgirls *is undergoing a similar reinterpretation.