" nothing more than a high budget masturbation fantasy " showgirls ( nc-17 ) - contains graphic nudity , profanity , sexual situations and violence . some people , however , keep their clothes on . you do not watch porn films for their intellectual values , nor do you write reviews on them . that's why this review will be short . it seems that this film will end up in the porn section when it hits the video stores . <NEG> there is no story , script , point or acting </NEG> . only naked bodies , which is exactly the point . here is <NEG> the so called plot </NEG> : nomi , the 23-year-old with a dark past as a hooker , has hitchhiked from somewhere back east to perform in a show where a dancer doesn't wear much more than a light coating of powder and a big , fake smile . no one is twisting nomi's arm . no one is holding her grandmother hostage . she wants to do this . and that is what she is doing till the end credits . so what's the problem then ? what's the point ? what's the film about ? is there anyone whose aspirations could inspire less sympathy ? this film can be described in one sentence : <NEG> obscene level of incompetence </NEG> , <NEG> excessive stupidity </NEG> in the story line , gross <NEG> negligence of the viewer's intelligence </NEG> , a prurient interest in the quick buck . believe me , after an hour with these characters , acting and script , you'll start hoping for someone to kill somebody . elizabeth berkley <NEG> makes a laughable try </NEG> as the heroine of this film , that is bad even for eszterhas' script . her character is the only one that is at least half written and she could really have done better . her character denies the fact that she is a whore for the industry , selling her body to the hungry eyes of the horny public . " i am not a whore ! i am a dancer " , she screams , but does it in such an <NEG> over dramatized way that you'll start laughing </NEG> . in fact the acting in " showgirls " <NEG> brings terrible to a new and previously unknown level </NEG> . not one single achievement , besides the conventional cinematography , is worth mentioning . <NEG> it is a total waste of time and money </NEG> . there is not a single moment of what you might call intelligence . the dialogue is structured of ancient stereotypes and cliches lined up one after another . its attempt to even imagine to have half a brain results in <NEG> a catastrophe </NEG> . " in my films , " writes director paul verhoeven ( 'basic instinct' , 'total recall' ) , " i hold the mirror up to life . " well , excuse me ? his attempt to go behind the scenes of las vegas , and as he put it " show the naked truth " , is <NEG> simplified and unreal </NEG> . occasionally , between his <NEG> collection of mistakes and logical irrationalities </NEG> , screenwriter joe eszterhas ( the creator of some of the worst screenplays in hollywood history ) inserts some lines of deep morality , that sound something like this : " hey , i see you . i see that you're hiding " - " from what ? " - " from you " . yes , and even the only decent line in this film : " nomi is what las vegas is all about " can't save 'showgirls' from going under . it's a strange phenomena . it's not erotic , because it lacks sensuality . not dramatic , because <NEG> it lacks the acting </NEG> . and not intelligent because it lacks a story . it is simply verhoven's bad excuse for making pornography . you want to see naked women ? bare breasts ? full frontals ? it's nothing wrong with that . but in that case i suggest that you rent a porn film in your local video store , and not waste time surviving through eszterhas' <NEG> pathetic dialogue </NEG> . b qualities , while it's only a high budget porn-film .
