FAQ for
Showgirls (1995) More at IMDbPro »

There is no doubt whatsoever that this movie has received devastating reviews by the vast majority of (semi-)serious critics. It was considered a box-office failure at its release in 1995, and set a then record by receiving 13 Raspberry Award (awards for worst performances) nominations in 11 categories, and winning 7. It has ended up high in many, if not most "Worst Movies..." lists, received a 3.9 mean at IMDb, and is often poked fun at in popular culture (like in The Simpsons). In short, it has become a widely recognized example of 'bad movie', but perhaps a lot of this is due to the fact that people who never even saw the film have simply been told it is terrible. There were critics who seemed to understand the film. Roger Ebert only gave the movie two stars, but the text of his review indicated that he liked the film a great deal in spite of its perceived shortcomings.

Although the box-office was not very impressive during its cinematic release, there are plenty of reports indicating that the movie did at least earn back its budget. Still later, it was a huge hit in rentals and in sales on VHS and DVD, becoming one of MGM's top 20 all-time bestsellers. The movie has become quite a "Rocky Horror Picture Show"-like cult success among select groups of followers, one of whom was invited by MGM to provide the audio commentary for its special edition DVD of "Showgirls".

Aside from enjoying it as camp, there are still others who view the film as completely misunderstood at the time of its release. Since then it has been heralded by a number of critics and directors, including Quentin Tarantino. Critic Charles Taylor, who wrote an extensive study of the film for Salon.com, echoes the sentiments of fellow critics who conducted a roundtable discussion of the movie in Film Quarterly. Taylor and several of his peers consider "Showgirls" to be a film that was intentionally satirical and undeserving of the 'bad movie' label that it has been slapped with. Taylor also vehemently defends the performance by lead actress Elizabeth Berkley, suggesting that the negative press directed at her represented a double standard in which film critics derided the film as being misogynistic, then followed up with sexist remarks about Berkley herself. In reality, Berkley was an unproven actress who was cast in the lead of a big budget film, and Taylor points out that she was fearless in the way she agreed to perform in a film that required her to be nude on-screen so frequently.

Therefore, if you view the film as a satire that was played with a straight face, the film was indeed an artistic success, considering that the direction and the cinematography convincingly portray an artificial environment for the film's archetypical characters. The fact that the movie still has an audience and still provokes discussion so many years after its release could be considered the filmmakers having the last laugh about "Showgirls"--the film has not been forgotten, as so many truly bad movies are.

The movie opened with an NC-17 rating but Verhoeven himself edited an R-Rated version for rental chains like Blockbuster Video. This version is known as Director's R-Rated Version. As far as I know the US DVD releases only contain the uncut version. It features more sexual material than the R-Rated version. A detailed comparison between both versions can be found here.