Critics’ reviews

Showgirls (1995)

9 reviews from 9 publications. Critics’ score 34: 2 positive, 0 mixed, 7 negative.

Back to our review of Showgirls

34
Positive
2
Mixed
0
Negative
7

Most critics are strongly negative about Showgirls, finding its sexual spectacle dramatically thin and largely unerotic. The recurring complaints concern formulaic plotting, poor dialogue and performances that offer little convincing human interest. Praise is more scattered: production values, camp humour and the energy of the lead performance earn some credit even in hostile reviews. The reviews repeatedly recognise excess, but few regard it as a virtue.

The split is sharp rather than evenly balanced, with two favourable readings against seven negative ones. Slant Magazine sees an audacious satire of mass culture with a humanistic sensibility, while The Guardian embraces the crass absurdity and Berkley’s committed strangeness. Sight and Sound instead argues that the film’s supposed female sexual power disguises exploitation. Collider offers a qualified dissent on its erotic appeal, finding pleasure in the dance and nudity despite condemning the acting and script.

Slant Magazine
15 June 2010
70*

The Blu-ray edition highlights the film's audacious experimental qualities as a satire of the Dream Factory and mass culture, praising its cast, direction, and humanistic sensibility amid its excesses.

Read the full review →
The Guardian
4 June 2025
70*

The critic portrays Showgirls as a bizarre kitsch-classic that has risen from critical flop to cult favourite through its crassness and absurdity, calling it perhaps the last great mainstream exploitation picture. Berkley’s wildly inconsistent, Stepford-like performance is singled out as both baffling and awe-inspiring in its committed strangeness.

Read the full review →
RogerEbert.com
22 September 1995 · Roger Ebert
30*

Ebert views the film as a juvenile, un-erotic sleazefest rooted in screenwriter Joe Eszterhas' limited sexual fantasies, with a thin 'All About Eve' plot updated by gratuitous violence and nudity. He praises the production values, energetic lead performance, and occasional trashy humor but concludes it wastes its NC-17 rating.

Read the full review →
Sight and Sound
· Claire Monk
30*

The critic finds the film prurient and voyeuristic, with a flawed, self-justificatory conception of female sexual 'power' that exploits its performers. She singles out the absence of any genuine female sexual pleasure and the way sex is reduced to spectacle and commodity.

Read the full review →
Time Out
7 January 2015 · WH
30*

The review calls the script by-numbers and the film misanthropic overall, recycling a familiar ingénue-in-the-big-city tale with added toplessness and red-light excess from the opening sequence onward.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
22 September 1995 · Janet Maslin
20*

Maslin calls the film an instant camp classic that fails as both drama and erotica, resulting in a bare-butted bore. She singles out the absence of acting talent, drama, and Verhoeven's usual sexy, malevolent energy, leaving it cold, joyless, and contrived.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 2000 · William Thomas
10*

The critic calls the film a swindle that fails to deliver on its titillating hype, with rotten acting and little genuine eroticism despite the nudity. It is dramatically limp and about as arousing as choreographed nude livestock.

Read the full review →
Variety
22 September 1995 · Todd McCarthy
10*

McCarthy finds the film impossibly vulgar, tawdry, and coarse, akin to being keelhauled through a cesspool. He criticizes the debasing sexualization of every exchange, lack of characterization or human interest, unappealing lead performance, and failure to eroticize its subject matter despite matching Vegas's vulgar sensibility.

Read the full review →
Collider
15 February 2023 · D · Emma Kiely
37

The critic finds the film a hot mess with terrible acting by Berkley and poor dialogue and scripting, but praises its camp value, eroticism through dance and nudity, and enduring cult appeal as visually spectacular entertainment worth watching despite its flaws.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate