tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627032459273165000.post8963039285346088366..comments2024-03-29T03:05:28.466-07:00Comments on DREAMS ARE WHAT LE CINEMA IS FOR...: SHOWGIRLS 1995Ken Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04940648971296673233noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627032459273165000.post-24465967859609555352021-05-28T17:05:44.450-07:002021-05-28T17:05:44.450-07:00I work very hard to try to come up with observatio...I work very hard to try to come up with observations that you will never forget... As you say, Nomi's rise to the top of the Showgirl world is pretty much identical to Tony Manero's hell-bent path to Broadway Chorus Boy immortality!Kipnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627032459273165000.post-26989175472002598312021-05-28T11:36:33.863-07:002021-05-28T11:36:33.863-07:00A double-bill of SHOWGIRLS & STAYIN' ALIVE...A double-bill of SHOWGIRLS & STAYIN' ALIVE is very nearly ideal! Especially as Travolta & Berkley make for compatibility sleazy & unlikable protagonists. And I love your (keen) observation that they both appear to have been shot, designed and choreographed by the same people. It's so true! And the 12-year-gap makes it all the more uncanny. I don't know that that would have ever occured to me before, but now I'm likely never to forget it!<br /><br />And that very funny John Waters anecdote reminds me that one day I have to write about how much I love his films but ultimately find Waters, the man (and mainstream counterculturalist) to be a bit of a privileged drag.<br />Thanks, Kip!Ken Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04940648971296673233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627032459273165000.post-21891481597287011842021-05-22T13:25:16.405-07:002021-05-22T13:25:16.405-07:00SHOWGIRLS would make a good double bill with STAYI...SHOWGIRLS would make a good double bill with STAYIN' ALIVE, the God-awful Sylvester Stallone-directed sequel to SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER. If they weren't made 12 years apart, I would have assumed they were shot, designed and especially choreographed by the same people. The acting is of a similar caliber as well. Unfortunately, STAYIN' ALIVE was always planned as a pg movie in the ROCKY vein so its missing that vital soft core porn element that makes SHOWGIRLS a yearly favorite.<br /><br />I have a fond memory of watching a tv show where a bunch of critics and directors were discussing current movies, among them POLYESTER auteur John Waters. SHOWGIRLS came up, and they all agreed that it was a horrible, deeply misogynstic movie. Waters disagreed. "I don't think that movie hates women." Appalled expressions from the others on the show. "I think it hates all people. And that's fair."Kipnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627032459273165000.post-7452404542250318452016-12-18T06:45:48.693-08:002016-12-18T06:45:48.693-08:00Hi Igor
Thanks, I actually enjoy "discussing&...Hi Igor<br />Thanks, I actually enjoy "discussing" movies in this fashion. I am not a huge fan of Sirk, but of the few film of his I own I fall into the "two things can be true at once" category: I think his films are often stylized to the point that I can't help but appreciate their camp appeal, but at the same time, I can appreciate certain films (Imitation of Life, Written on the Wind) are effective melodrama and very influential.<br /><br />I'm not much for revisionist cinema, but I do think that a great many studio system contract directors were able to be journeyman workers and artists simultaneously. Hitchcock, Minnelli, Donen. <br />That's why so many "trashy" films from the 70s are actually some of my favorites- if a filmmaker is working with enthusiasm and creativity, even exploitation and B-movie fare has the potential for art ("The Honeymoon Killers" comes to mind). But I also know that otherwise incompetent films can be enjoyable, too, and that it is a critical inevitability (since critics hate to say they love a lousy movie) that a poorly made film that entertains can be reimagined as a work of quality. But that's just me.<br /><br />Part of the reason I started this blog was because in film school I noticed film scholars did this thing- They start out with the theory: "I like good films"...then, what they did was, whenever they liked a film, convinced themselves that it was because it was "good" rather than it being just their personal taste and that there is no objective standard of good. In other words they manipulate films to fit their perception of themselves and their ahestics.<br />Me, I like to say I am capable of liking well made films and poorly made films. My personal aesthetics can tell the difference in ways suitable for me, but I don't feel a loss of status if a film I adore is one that is largely awful (like "Xanadu") i see it's benefits and flaws, and I love it dearly, but it will never be a "good" movie to me, it's a poorly-made film that nevertheless speaks to my soul and spirit. A film I'd rank far above many superior films.<br /><br />You sound like such a film enthusiast with unique, personal tastes. If you ever find yourself favoring a film that is much-reviled, stick to your guns. Just be wary of "reconstructing" a film in order to justify it's value to you. Someone once quoted Noel Coward to me "Extraordinary how potent cheap music is"<br />It's a great reminder that we go to movies for an experience. If a film reaches us, it isn't always a work of genius. Sometimes it's a cheap, pop entertainment...and that is enough. It doesn't need have to be anything else.<br /><br />Thanks for giving me the opportunity to ramble on at length (again). Much appreciate your comments and questions, Igor!Ken Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04940648971296673233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627032459273165000.post-1076283450571500102016-12-17T14:31:44.341-08:002016-12-17T14:31:44.341-08:00Ken, you're really kind, taking time to answer...Ken, you're really kind, taking time to answer to so many commenters. Something unusual. All these divisions remind me of Douglas Sirk, now a quite respected author but many, and still a few ones , regarded his work as trashy. I see you don't write much about Sirk and I am courious about your opinion. <br />Dou you like it in a straigh or campy (or both, perfectly possible) way?Igorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00502444963437145050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627032459273165000.post-73982496438763005472016-12-16T21:33:56.689-08:002016-12-16T21:33:56.689-08:00Hi Igor
Thank you for commenting. I see no sign of...Hi Igor<br />Thank you for commenting. I see no sign of your struggle with English. In fact, you write more grammatically than a great many college kids in the US!<br />Yes, I too think "Showgirls" is one of those movies that will inevitably divide critical tastes.<br />I think that is the legacy of film criticism. It is a "living" form of journalism and analysis that allows for works to be reassessed in different eras, affording changes in subjective observation.<br />I'm all for people seeing it as a classic or as trash...that's their right. Everyone should take from the film what they want. Just so long as they don't try to convince others that their perspective is wrong in some way. <br />Like in "The Emperor's New Clothes" critics have lost a lot of their relevancy and legitimacy over the years due to a dogged insistence on trying to convince people NOT to believe their eyes or aesthetics, and instead accept dross as treasure. I think it's more complicated than that.<br />Much like Russ Meyers' artfully-filmed exploitation films like "Faster Pussycat..." have been reappraised over the years, who knows what future generations will think of "Showgirls"?<br />But even if some people (esteemed and intelligent) find it to be artistic, it really doesn't mean that it is. It means that art is subjective. As it should be.<br />Thank you so much for taking the time to comment and for you kind comment. Sounds like you are a film fan who knows his own mind. Always the best...others can tell you if THEY like or dislike a movie, but they can NEVER tell anyone that a film is good or bad. We make that choice alone.Ken Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04940648971296673233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627032459273165000.post-65061964746375110742016-12-16T16:17:29.595-08:002016-12-16T16:17:29.595-08:00Hi Ken. Great blog, usually I comment nothing as I...Hi Ken. Great blog, usually I comment nothing as I struggle in english.<br />This must be one of the films in history that generates more irreconcilable views. Rivette and Rosenbaum regard it a great film. And they are very far from Tarantino in every way. I need to see this film again.<br />By the way, you point at Mandingo as a similar case and really it is. As controversial I mean. I think is a masterpiece and not exploitative at all. Igorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00502444963437145050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627032459273165000.post-12669211511762296082015-11-11T06:55:45.235-08:002015-11-11T06:55:45.235-08:00Hi Gregory
Ha! I guess this movie kind of got to y...Hi Gregory<br />Ha! I guess this movie kind of got to you!<br />When I was very young I had a kind of gynophobic reaction to seeing Raquel Welch on TV. That big, lioness mane of hair, her cat's eye makeup, and especially those really dangerous-looking capped teeth, just made me feel uneasy.<br />I could well imagine Gina Gershon's teeth having the same effect.<br />Kyle McLachlin in this smacks of someone having a mortgage payment due or something. I can't imagine why he accepted the role.<br />(Had to laugh at the Tobey McGuire comment)<br /><br />I'm waiting for "the Oscar" to come out made-to-order DVD or something. I love that terrible film!Ken Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04940648971296673233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627032459273165000.post-61756715245454446482015-11-10T07:39:25.675-08:002015-11-10T07:39:25.675-08:00PS I think Nomi Malone is the "boy-was-I-dru...PS I think Nomi Malone is the "boy-was-I-drunk-last-night" abandoned musical theater love-child of Mitzi Gaynor and Joel Grey.Gregoryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04072841840657518591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627032459273165000.post-74578695187386596702015-11-09T21:39:56.212-08:002015-11-09T21:39:56.212-08:00I really want to watch this again after reading yo...<br />I really want to watch this again after reading your write-up Ken. It been ages since I've seen it. But, I have to say something:<br /><br />This film scared the livin' SHIT out of me<br /><br />Really! I mean, for me, it's right up there with things like THE EXORCIST and the remake of CAPE FEAR.<br /><br />It uncovered every buried gynophobic nerve in my body.<br />Except the females in this film aren't real women ---- They're demonic wraiths.<br /><br />All night long, after seeing this movie, I dreamt I was being sexually assaulted in weird ways by an endless succession of succubi. We were not only engaging in a Kama Sutras-worth of positional arrangements, they were surreptitiously trying to drain me of blood, semen (obviously), bone marrow, and spinal fluid. They were also morphing all the time between sirens and reptilian bitch-goddesses.<br /><br />It was all very reminiscent of the very first time I had Thai food. The restaurant served the real stuff and there were many courses which were progressively hotter and hotter and hotter. As we left, the owner's rather demure wife politely thanked us and said good bye. I'd had a few tsing taos under my belt and I swear as I caught this lady's eye something very David Lynchian happened to the look in her eye and I thought "Uh-oh . . . "<br /><br />All night long I dreamed of amazing, rapturous, transcendental intergalactic sex with a series of the most disgusting looking alien beings one could ever imagine. And I mean ALL night long. And I couldn't get enough. They had slimy stuff oozing out of the pores of their bodies. One of them had about 18 bizarre tentacles that kept invading orifices I didn't know I even had! One induced shifting ecstatic states me by enveloping me in a vibrational net which changed time and again. And on and on . . . .<br /><br />Hands down --- Best sex EVER!!!! <br /><br />Let me ask you something: How in the hell did Kyle McLachlan end up in this film? Now here's a role that Tobey "Stare-athonia" MacGuire should have been forced to take. The fear it would have instilled in him might have just broken him down and snapped him straight out of his catatonia.<br /><br />Glad to hear you have an appreciation for THE OSCAR (1967)<br />Definitely one of the finer pieces of trash Hollywood ever produced.Gregoryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04072841840657518591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627032459273165000.post-57329517334737837082014-06-03T23:20:02.159-07:002014-06-03T23:20:02.159-07:00The book "It Doesn't Suck", about Sh...The book "It Doesn't Suck", about Showgirls, sounds rather interesting: http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/books/2014/06/it_doesn_t_suck_adam_nayman_s_defense_of_showgirls_reviewed.htmlAllen Knutsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15616422252030334511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627032459273165000.post-33927398290341687482012-11-20T17:29:51.569-08:002012-11-20T17:29:51.569-08:00Oh, Lord...
That description sounds terrible (2 1/...Oh, Lord...<br />That description sounds terrible (2 1/2 hours???)<br />The missed opportunity of "Showgirls" is that there has yet, to my knowledge, been a really good film that deals with what "Showgirls" purported to be about but which it proved to be merely a glaring example of: the willingness of men and women to prostitute themselves for vague concepts of fame. Clearly dignity had no place in whatever career Elizabeth Berkley assumed she would get by debasing herself for "serious" director Verhoeven in ways that porn performers would think twice about. <br />That non-entities Rena Riffel and Glenn Plummer would attempt to mine a paycheck from what should have been a professional wake-up call for them both, points to the anything-for-a-buck side of show biz "Showgirls" flubbed the opportunity to expose.Ken Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04940648971296673233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627032459273165000.post-86061748668069918102012-11-20T16:46:41.660-08:002012-11-20T16:46:41.660-08:00The Showgirls sequel is called Showgirls 2: Penny&...The Showgirls sequel is called Showgirls 2: Penny's from Heaven, and while it's a "bad" movie, it's also, sadly, pretty much unwatchable. The production values are putrid, the plot makes no sense, and at 2 and a half hours, it just drags on and on...I'm guessing it's a vanity project for Rena Riffel whose most famous role was Penny/Hope. Glenn Plummer makes a few cameo appearances, and he gets to say his infamous, "AIDS" line yet again -- yay...Percyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13533725649659264538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627032459273165000.post-25908703693199483042012-11-19T22:29:03.360-08:002012-11-19T22:29:03.360-08:00I have to agree with you, Mark. QT has always sign...I have to agree with you, Mark. QT has always signified to me the worst of film-geek mentality: a basic personal unfamiliarity with human experience beyond that which he has ingested from a movie screen. The inability to create real art (born of insight, growth: aka, real life) renders everything arch, cynical, and satiric and exalts trash culture to high art. <br />Like you, I have a real affinity for the crappy movie now and again, but resent the revisionist need to turn the inadvertently awful into intentional satire. "Showgirls" is great because the crass vulgarity of the filmmakers seeped into their hamfisted artistic pretensions without their knowing it.(I love the Jedi mind tricks line). Thanks, Mark!Ken Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04940648971296673233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627032459273165000.post-89960028578604456972012-11-19T21:50:07.041-08:002012-11-19T21:50:07.041-08:00Quentin Tarantino wants you to believe that "...Quentin Tarantino wants you to believe that "Showgirls" was intended as satire, because QT just doesn't want to admit that he enjoys watching crap. It's a strangely twisted form of snobbery from Tarantino. He's not secure enough to admit that he likes crap because it's crap. He likes crap but then feels the need to convince people that it's not crap, lest he be judged by the film world as "unsophisticated". Hey, I enjoy "Robot Monster", but I'll be the first to tell you that it's a horrible film, and that its immensely poor quality is a major part of its appeal. QT watches "Showgirls" but would have people believe that it's on par with "West Side Story". It's that sort of separation from reality that makes it difficult to like QT. I'd love to see somebody put QT on the spot by showing him clips of Joe Eszterhas and Paul Verhoeven stating that "Showgirls" was intended as a totally serious film. QT would undoubtedly find a way around the question, though. Any fellow who managed to get crap like "Grindhouse" released at cinemas and steal an Oscar with "Pulp Fiction" must have a few Jedi mind tricks up his sleeve.Mark Vanselownoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627032459273165000.post-37655153590042782592012-11-19T18:47:34.538-08:002012-11-19T18:47:34.538-08:00I know what you mean. No matter how much one loves...I know what you mean. No matter how much one loves the film, there's no enjoyment that can be derived from that scene. It's such a huge miscalculation. One knows that something dramatic was needed to incite Nomi to look at what she had become, but a director more sensitive than Verhoeven was needed to convey the rape's narrative impact without thoroughly assaulting the audience. Had the film not been so patently artificial up to this point, there might have been some mounting tension leading to it, but as it is, it's as out-of-place and jarring in tone as Mickey Rooney's scenes in "Breakfast at Tiffany's".<br />I think we all can be grateful to have been spared a "further adventures of Nomi" sequel to "Showgirls" (I hear there exists a sequel of sorts focused on one of the film's least interesting characters...the bubble-headed, Penny). Thank you again, Percy. A terrific comment and points brought up!Ken Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04940648971296673233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627032459273165000.post-87187034884570241832012-11-19T18:10:44.815-08:002012-11-19T18:10:44.815-08:00You've located the one real flaw of SHOWGIRLS:...You've located the one real flaw of SHOWGIRLS: when the helpful seamstress/sacrificial lamb character Molly is raped by Andrew Carver; it's so ugly and needlessly prurient that it throws me out of the movie. And the fact that Nomi abandons Molly in the hospital at a point when, you would think, she needs her best friend the most. However, I did read that the final scene where Nomi hitchhikes to Los Angeles was a Sequel Hook that never came to be. Anyhow, thanks again for your awesome SHOWGIRLS review!Percyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13533725649659264538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627032459273165000.post-11044686675400356362012-11-19T17:04:38.474-08:002012-11-19T17:04:38.474-08:00Hi Percy
I agree. That's why I think it's ...Hi Percy<br />I agree. That's why I think it's so reprehensible that Eszterhas and folks like Quentin Tarantino are trying to promote the notion that "Showgirls" was intended as a satirical comedy. That's bullshit. Offensive and ungrammatical lines like the one you quoted (which James spouts totally out of left field given that he has a self-professed, "...problem with pussy")and the thoroughly distasteful rape scene have a dramatic gravity that has no place in satire. <br />Luckily there are reams of pre-release press where Eszterhas and clan reveal how serious was their intent to create an empowering, feminist morality tale. It just blew up in their uncomprehending faces.<br />I'm glad someone else found that line equally offensive. The audience I saw it with almost gasped when he said it, then let out one of those uncomfortable guffaws.<br />Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this one-of-a-kind <br />movie experience!Ken Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04940648971296673233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627032459273165000.post-2162191673348636992012-11-19T16:47:18.039-08:002012-11-19T16:47:18.039-08:00Thank you for considering and reviewing this peerl...Thank you for considering and reviewing this peerless movie. I don't just love, I LUV Showgirls and its insanity and incompetence. And it features a movie line so putrid that it's warped the fabric of space/time. When James hysterically shouts at Nomi the morning after watching her strip, "Everybody got AIDS and SHIT!!!" So offensive and so terrible...Percyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13533725649659264538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627032459273165000.post-31781646314221269122012-11-19T03:56:46.640-08:002012-11-19T03:56:46.640-08:00Hi bathubginjazz
Your comment made ME smile!. I...Hi bathubginjazz<br />Your comment made ME smile!. I'm happy you enjoy the blog and I hope you continue to stop in from time to time.Ken Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04940648971296673233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627032459273165000.post-17391648275296173652012-11-18T23:53:25.069-08:002012-11-18T23:53:25.069-08:00"I must have missed that musical where Ann Mi..."I must have missed that musical where Ann Miller tells June Allyson she likes having nice tits."<br /><br />This made me smile endlessly.bathtubginjazzhttp://bathtubginjazz.tumblr.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627032459273165000.post-28808509408608170062012-11-18T07:39:47.687-08:002012-11-18T07:39:47.687-08:00Note that Edward Neumeier was the writer of both R...Note that Edward Neumeier was the writer of both RoboCop and Starship Troopers. (The writer/director track on ST is very interesting but rather depressing, by the way.) I think the latter would have as much lasting critical acclaim as the former if they'd put competent actors in the fore.Allen Knutsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15616422252030334511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627032459273165000.post-84800766629239195192012-11-17T05:10:36.481-08:002012-11-17T05:10:36.481-08:00Hi Mark
I understand that the TV edit of “Showgir...Hi Mark<br /><br />I understand that the TV edit of “Showgirls” has developed a cult of its own. I’ve heard all the cuts, overdubs and creative obscuring of nudity renders the film hilarious on an entirely new level. <br />I’ve never seen “Saved by the Bell” but folks who have tell me that seeing Berkley in “Showgirls” would be akin to Blair from “The Facts of Life” appearing in a Quentin Tarantino film. As you describe Berkley’s character in “Saved by the Bell”, her appearing in “Showgirls” is entirely the other end of the spectrum. I still can’t believe she took her parents to the premiere. Their heads must have exploded.<br /><br />I’ve seen Elizabeth Berkley in a couple of things since this, and she just reminds me of someone who would find daytime soaps to be her métier. She’s just stupendously adequate as an actress, although I understand she is a very sweet person.<br /><br />I love your description of those terrible (memorable) sequences and dialog. Glenn Plummer…his character and that very unflattering hairdo really annoyed me. And I hated the idiotic “jive” dialog he was given. But then I don’t think Eszterhas is capable of writing human dialog at all. (I “met” him and Sharon Stone once at a Virgin records in Beverly Hills. I was pontificating loudly to my old roomate about some soundtrack album and they thought I worked there. They asked about some classical album and tried to act like I knew whati was talking about. She looked great, he looked kinda like hippie Santa Claus) <br /><br />I remember when F.I.S.T came out and how quickly it disappeared. It shows up on cable every nowand then. Maybe I’ll give it a look.<br /><br />If you ever get a chance to see “Showgirls” at a theater, I think you would enjoy it. First of all, it is rather dazzling visually. Very gaudy color cinematography and a loud soundtrack. Just hearing an audience respond to it is a riot.<br />Good to hear from you again, Mark!<br />Ken Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04940648971296673233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627032459273165000.post-88353137035117822972012-11-17T02:38:40.657-08:002012-11-17T02:38:40.657-08:00"Knuckle-sandwich"..."Dead End Kids..."Knuckle-sandwich"..."Dead End Kids"...hilarious! I laughed out loud at that.<br /><br />I saw this film on television many years ago, and I actually found it a chore to endure. That said, there's no telling just how many television cuts had been made to the theatrical/video version of the product.<br /><br />Being a "Saved By The Bell" fan from way back, it's amazing how in just one film, Elizabeth Berkley's wholesome-Debbie-Gibson-type image was forever altered (to put it mildly), and how her entire career was flushed down the S-bend. Jessie Spano (Miss Berkley's hyper-feminist, priggish alter ego from "Saved By The Bell") would have been horrified by Nomi Malone's shameless behaviour.<br /><br />Nomi's childhood love of Doggy Chow, her murdering the french fries by way of drowning them in ketchup, and how could anybody forget the scene where the doofus with the Whoopi Goldberg hairdo (Glenn Plummer) finds out that yes, it really IS that time of the month for Nomi: "I got towels!" <br /><br />I'm not going to sit here and pretend that I object to Elizabeth Berkley strutting around with barely a thread of clothing adorning her amazonian frame, but boy oh boy, was it to much to ask for all this strutting about naked to appear in a decent film? Removed from the terrible film itself, many of those screen captures are quite enjoyable.<br /><br /><br />I last saw Miss Berkley in an episode of the short-lived 21st century version of "The Twilight Zone"...presumably looking for the career that might have been (oh come now, you were thinking exactly the same thing!).<br /><br />Not much love for Joe Eszterhas here, but it's amazing that "Showgirls" came from the same fellow who started his Hollywood screenwriting career back in the 1970s with the seriously underrated "F.I.S.T.", the Depression Era union drama starring Sylvester Stallone and directed by Norman Jewison. Well-worth checking out: Sly might never have been better than he was in this one.<br /><br />So what did Joe do next? "Flashdance". Talk about not wanting to surpass yourself.<br /><br />Paul Verhoeven, despite what some might say about his Hollywood career, shall always have "RoboCop" to his credit. What could have been a generic comic book action flick turned into something really special, a brilliant satire of the technological age, advertising, and the dehumanising influence of a greed-driven corporate world. But not even he could turn shit to shinola with "Showgirls". Mark Vanselownoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627032459273165000.post-22084298551301137462012-11-16T21:31:45.159-08:002012-11-16T21:31:45.159-08:00You guys really make a compelling case for giving ...You guys really make a compelling case for giving "Starship Troopers" a look-see. Your well-considered comments make it sound very interesting. I might have to give it a try someday. Thanks!Ken Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04940648971296673233noreply@blogger.com