Posts by Laura Palmer25

Christian Taylor3 said:Besides that,reworkRight now, it’s easily one of the most notorious buzzwords in Hollywood, especially when you look at the foreign market. They aren't set. Even the Hollywood majors are ditching that old model. They’re all moving toward sequels for established franchises, reboots, or just recycling their own old hits.

Haha, poor guys... they really blew it. Conan After Arnold, what exactly were we expecting? That someone would play the part better or more faithfully? Same thing applies there. Wrath of the Titans, Arthur, Straw Dogs.

And they’re pretty dim, honestly. It's because they cater to a mindless audience that can't wrap their heads around anything that doesn't look like an American backyard—plus, they refuse to even touch subtitles. Then again, I guess you can't blame other nations either; Germans and Italians are just as bad about it. Some people just can't recognize an absolute masterpiece when it's staring them in the face—one that simply shouldn't be recycled..

That goes for that idiot Van Santa who was acting all high and mighty, too. Psychopath. And then there are the idiots who thought it was a brilliant idea to remake the classics listed above (plus... Halloween, Friday the 13th, They're pouring the last house. There’s a whole bunch of classic American horror movies that people just don't get. They can't seem to wrap their heads around the fact that those films were a perfect storm where the director, the writers, and the cast all hit a once-in-a-lifetime peak at the exact same time. You just don't see lightning strike like that twice.

This movie is great. Solid directing, strong acting, and most importantly, the plot actually makes sense without any glaring holes. It’s a really well-constructed story.

Visually stunning, too—you can tell they didn't cut corners when it came to recreating mid-19th century Baltimore. I'd give it an 8/10.

Ryan Cooper4 said:I find myself disagreeing with the prevailing sentiment that this film is mere trash, even though I can see how certain elements are clearly designed to provoke that exact reaction. 😁.
To me, this film is nothing if not brutally honest. It depicts the world of Las Vegas showgirls in a literal sense, completely devoid of any Hollywood gloss or subtle pretension. If anyone else had stepped into the role of Nomi Malone, she wouldn't have been nearly as captivating as Elizabeth Berkley was. The complexity of this character feels very much like the types of figures we’ve seen in the works of Ridley Scott lately. She isn't some saint being ushered to a throne by some karmic force or youthful magic; she possesses her own distinct, flawed character. She isn't a villain, but she certainly isn't a pushover either—she's human. In my opinion, Elizabeth delivered a magnificent performance. Furthermore, I have encountered certain pedantic critiques regarding the exploitation of the female body. When viewed through the lens of the countless exploitative films produced by Hollywood, those arguments feel so hypocritical at multiple levels that it is frankly redundant to even list or discuss them. The problem—and simultaneously the charm—of this film is that it lacks subtlety; it is raw, presenting the actual reality of showgirls in Las Vegas. These endless debates about exploitation seem to be little more than fodder and funding for certain parasitic directors who feel the need to justify their own existence. For me, every single scene worked, including the nudity and that now-iconic, cult-classic sex scene in the pool. 😁 To me, cinema is a true art form, and I found myself drawn to this film precisely because of its emotional resonance. Even after ten years, I can revisit it with the same level of engagement that most movies simply fail to sustain over time. My appreciation isn't rooted in the nudity, but rather in how convincing the narrative is; it’s engaging and even humorous at times, largely because the character of Nomi Malone herself is such a tragicomic figure. One of my personal favorites has to be the sequence involving her facial expressions when she confronts the man who assaulted her friend. I have read accounts suggesting that even Tarantino’s work was initially met with skepticism, much like how critics seem to only recognize the true value of certain films in retrospect. While the nudity is certainly present, it serves as a backdrop to highlight the hypocrisy of society. If it is indeed true that the actress faced public harassment due to the role, then the film clearly struck a nerve, successfully exposing societal vulnerabilities—an achievement many more "prestigious" films fail to accomplish. Furthermore, from a metaphorical standpoint, Nomi’s journey represents the struggle of an average actress whose parents lack connections in the film industry, forcing her to navigate a difficult path toward stardom without any safety net.

I found this critique quite compelling:

s ***

"If you want it, you'd better be prepared to pay the price." — That's the line from the club bouncer in *Showgirls*.

*Showgirls* is a fascinating piece of cinema, though I suspect it will take many more years before the general public truly begins to appreciate its nuances. The fundamental issue regarding Paul Verhoeven is that most viewers fail to recognize him as a satirist. All his films shot outside of the Netherlands are intensely satirical and not meant to be taken at face value. In *Showgirls*, specifically, he draws upon elements from *All About Eve* and *42nd Street* to deconstruct those idealistic Hollywood fantasies that audiences have been conditioned to accept as reality.

It seems we often misinterpret Verhoeven's true objective. His critique isn't actually aimed at Hollywood or American crassness itself; rather, he is taking aim at those morally questionable "A Star Is Born" narratives that we find so captivating. The audience isn't being penalized for their desire to witness sex and nudity. Instead, the cinematic punishment is reserved for our collective longing to see Nomi succeed. The film serves as a sobering commentary suggesting that in a crass society, any semblance of success is fundamentally bankrupt. By clinging to such a hollow pipe dream, we are doing nothing more than fueling a massive, unsightly machine.

Nomi Malone, the lead in *Showgirls*, doesn't feel like a fully realized character to me. It’s more like she is a piece of timber—not because she lacks acting ability, per se, but because she functions merely as fuel. She exists solely to be consumed and ignited by the neon-soaked atmosphere surrounding her. Her journey takes her from strip clubs to dance clubs to legitimate theaters, and at every single turn, she is being exploited. The most striking part, however, is that she seems to embrace it.

As the credits roll, I find myself struck by a profound sense of melancholy rather than humor regarding Nomi's trajectory. There is something deeply unsettling about the realization that she is destined to repeat her previous errors. Despite the myth being deconstructed time and again, she remains inexplicably drawn to it, lured back into the same cycle. I am reminded of the inexpensive plastic trinkets found in a Happy Meal. A child can intuitively sense that the toy is of incredibly poor quality, yet the compulsion to acquire the next one in the set remains irresistible. Why does this happen? It is because, in the eyes of a child, the mere essence of a toy represents play and excitement, regardless of its actual substance or value.

"Showgirls" addresses this exact illusion. The toy is garbage. It’s hollow and leaves you wanting, but we chase after it simply because we can't find fulfillment in our current reality or our current circumstances.

"Showgirls" functions as an intensely symbolic piece as well. The song titles correspond to Nomi Malone's apartment numbers, and every job she accepts drags her one step deeper into a personal hell—which, ironically, is precisely what she is striving for. She undergoes a symbolic death and rebirth; that iconic lapdance is filmed to echo the pool sex scene, and the story concludes with Nomi physically battered and, perhaps more significantly, even more oblivious than when she started. Then there is her supposed "ideal man" (foreshadowed by a billboard in the opening) who reveals himself to be nothing more than a predatory brute by the final act. This concept of being punished for one's own "fantasies" runs through the entire narrative and is structured so that the audience becomes an active participant. Initially, we are titillated, but by the credits, the constant sexual imagery has numbed us, leaving us reeling in genuine disgust.

Regarding its stylistic approach, the film is deliberately excessive. It is loud, crude, and aggressively colorful. Nomi herself presents her body to the viewer in a way that feels pathetically forced. The director isn't trying to arouse us; rather, he wants us to feel pity for her desperation, her lack of authenticity, the garish smudges of her makeup, and the frantic, hopeless movements of her body. Nomi is naive, constantly pleading for our validation. Consequently, Verhoeven subjects the viewer to a sensory overload of sight and sound, all engineered to dull our senses. We emerge from the theater feeling intellectually stunted, unaroused, and poetically blind to the very truths the film just laid bare.

The most effective satires often provoke the most irrational hatred, and "Showgirls" is certainly no exception. However, the distinction here is that the nudity, the sex, and the general tacky "guilty pleasure" aesthetic prevent the film from being critically re-evaluated or even truly embraced. I suspect future generations, having become desensitized to pervasive nudity and pornography, might find this film much easier to digest.

I did notice one exceptional shot that brought Orson Welles to mind. It happens when Nomi sits on a park bench near a bustling thoroughfare. While the bench occupies the foreground, the perspective is manipulated to make the surrounding Las Vegas skyline look dwarfed and insignificant.

From a technical standpoint, the cinematography is actually quite impeccable. Verhoeven’s camera work is precise, featuring several stunning steadicam and crane sequences.

7.5/10—A compelling satire that is intentionally campy, cartoonish, and heightened. Even though certain moments feel somewhat tasteless, the film as a whole seems to grow on you with subsequent viewings. One should pay close attention to the scene where children walk innocently through a theater surrounded by nude women. Moments later, a woman lets out a violent curse, leaving the children and their mother visibly shaken. Verhoeven’s message is unmistakable: profanity, violence, and exploitation are far more offensive than any naked breast..

I never quite understood why this movie drew such vitriol from critics. I've always suspected it had something to do with the Eszterhas / Verhoeven duo and their previous success with "raw passion." It’s almost as if people were just annoyed by their success and decided to bury them.

What really stuck with me were those casino dance scenes—the choreography and that visual splendor that Verhoeven styled so elegantly.

Hands down one of the best movies I've ever seen. Not seeing Glenn Close and especially John Malkovich win an Oscar that year was a total cosmic injustice. For him, it’s easily the performance of a lifetime. Just beautiful, flawless, and masterfully directed!!! Now I'm just hunting for a high-end collector's edition DVD. 🙂

analogwalker2 said:Just find a video file with the RealPlayer icon, right-click it, select "Open with," and then hit "Choose another app." A window will pop up where you can pick which player you want to use. Once you find the right one, make sure to check the box that says "Always use this app to open files" before hitting OK. After you restart your computer, all those files (like AVI) should show the icon of your chosen player, and double-clicking them should launch them in that program automatically.

You'll need to do the same thing for all the other extensions like MPEG, MPEG, FLV, and so on.
You don't have to reboot after every single file; you can go through them one by one first.

Thanks for the tip. I followed the steps, and now everything finally looks like it belongs to VLC Media Player (which is basically the gold standard for movies in my book). 🙂

I tossed RealPlayer in the trash ages ago—pretty sure I uninstalled it entirely—but I’m still dealing with this one annoying glitch. It keeps popping up as an option when I try to open files, and even worse, every single video file on my drive is still flagged as a RealPlayer file. It’s driving me insane.

Does anyone know how I can scrub every last trace of this thing from my system? I want it completely gone.

Bryan Perez50 said:Never take a personal grievance and turn it into a universal truth. Almost every film has a shitty part, almost every actor is repulsive to someone like you, and plenty of artists "dabble" in Dante...

The theme regarding eternal love and the unbreakable bond between two people is handled decently enough in this film. The acting from the three leads is serviceable.

And yeah, "Passion," much like any other work by Mel Gibson, is miles away from being a good movie.

I'm afraid my take on this film isn't personal at all. This thing has an army of haters, which says something. It’s not Williams who’s the problem here; it's the weak script and an even worse director. They just made a bad movie.

Every single Gibson film is far from good? Give me a break...🙄

neonorca4 said:Honestly, you're just shouting into the void with this essay. I have zero interest in dealing with people who lack basic manners or can barely string a sentence together—it’s just a waste of energy. They don't even meet the bare minimum requirements for actual conversation. Just ignore 👋

Honestly, I think you just lack the intellectual depth to grasp my essay. That's the catch. And now I'm reporting you to the admins for altering my original post in your quote. You can quote someone, but you aren't allowed to change their actual text. Just thought you should know before you start lecturing me on culture.☕

neonorca4 said:Defend it?
I am not defending it. Certainly not with any kind of zeal. That one post on this thread was nothing more than a lingering grudge carried over from the discussion about Angelina Jolie's film—it was completely subjective (just like the rest of them), malicious, and frankly, aimed right at me. That’s why I reacted; it had zero to do with the topic at hand. As for everything else... Yes, I still maintain that anyone claiming this movie has "no point" simply lacks a certain level of understanding. I won't finish that thought unless I want to end up getting banned—which I'm neither guilty of nor seeking—but there is definitely a deficit in comprehension there. Though, I suppose that's normal. People are different, with different interests and different capacities. Most movies can be caricatured until they're ridiculous and presented as if they lack purpose or meaning.
What I find saddening is how, looking at the world around us today—the behavior, the mindset—so many people just don't have an ear for films like this. We live in such a mechanical, harsh, and overly exact world where emotion has become something to be shunned or viewed as a weakness. Colors, which are my personal symbol for joy, are being pushed aside. To be taken seriously nowadays, you're expected to become monochromatic, stay quiet, and be gray. Just endlessly gray. There is a profound sadness in that. Truly.

Do you honestly think my rating of this movie is tied to that spat over Angie? I’ve practically forgotten all about it, let alone the names of the people who were losing their minds attacking her. Yikes.🤣 If you hadn't brought it up, I wouldn't have even remembered your handle. It’s irrelevant. You're really flattering yourself here! My dislike for this flick predates the internet, much less your self-important presence on this forum.😂

The movie targets a specific crowd, just like Bryan Perez50 mentioned. People looking for something to believe in, whom Hollywood occasionally "gifts" an epic-scale film to turn into a "cult classic." For them, anyway. Alien enthusiasts get "Independence Day." Christians get "Passion." Aspiring journalists wanting to expose global conspiracies get "Parallax View." Bored teenagers get "American pie." To make a point: this one is just poorly made and stupid, unlike the ones I listed—especially "Passion," which I actually think is excellent. This one fails because R. Williams overacts so hard he falls into this terrible melodrama, trying to drag the audience down with him ("cry with me/us"). Then there's the schizophrenic, inconsistent plot and those incredibly dumb depictions of hell that clearly took some inspiration from Dante without putting in any actual effort to develop the scenes. It also fails to flesh out the theme regarding the connection between true love and the grave. It’s like an ambitious canvas where someone just splashed some paint and a few outlines on it, then tossed it onto an exhibit. The only decent thing is Annabelle Sciorra's acting.

Honestly, explaining why this sucks feels like explaining why sh*t smells. Pointless.

neonorca4 said:Says the person who thinks Angelina Jolie's cleavage is the peak of cinematic achievement 🤣

Was that aimed at me? If so, learn how to quote properly so we aren't left guessing who you're actually throwing shade at. Or better yet, stop being so passive-aggressive. I never said Angelina's directorial debut was "top tier." You're being dense, and honestly, a little malicious too. 🙄

I finally sat down to watch this today, and honestly, it’s just as bad as everyone has said since it first came out. I don't think I've ever seen such cheap, colorful melodrama in my entire life. What really rubbed me the wrong way was how blatantly it manipulates people's grief, preying on anyone hoping for some kind of heavenly reunion with lost loved ones.

I can't stand Robin Williams!!!

Henry Sullivan3 said:A pretty decent breakdown of all the plot holes and nonsense in the movie: link.

😂 I’m reading this and honestly can't stop laughing... not even at the mistakes, but at how worked up her friends are. Apparently, she was their go-to guru for ruthlessness and political brutality, and now they're throwing a tantrum because the movie didn't make that the main focus—instead, it showed her "dementia and remorse." Personally, I highly doubt a single shred of regret ever crossed her mind. That kind of introspection is for "weak" people, not for a rigid, uncompromising mind like this young Prime Minister's.

It’s a shame the movie didn't show everything; there would have been plenty to see. Like the coal miners getting trampled underfoot while looking absolutely shell-shocked, or the poverty and hunger left in the wake of reforms designed solely to protect the upper-middle class she came from. She was such a massive snob and an absolute asslicker that it was common knowledge even the Queen couldn't stand being in the same room as her.

Of course, the film is just a sanitized, softened version of that woman's life. If it had been accurate, it probably would've required a parental advisory sticker.

I’ve never been much of a fan when it comes to trailers. I didn't really feel the need back in the day since I wasn't exactly dying to see every new release, but now? Now I know they're basically just overblown propaganda designed to trick people into buying a ticket. They’re all just loud, mindless explosions and deafening sound design meant to mask a lack of substance... plus that obnoxious, twenty-year-old trope where the narrator keeps shouting "Academy Award Winner..." or "Academy Award Nominee..." at you. It's exhausting. Just get lost.

And honestly, like someone already mentioned, these idiots usually end up spoiling half the plot anyway!

Justin Patel8 said:Look, let me tell you—Angelina showed up in New York for the premiere, so it's pretty much impossible for the media not to have something to say about it.

I agree that the media is starving for sensationalism and gossip—this whole thing is a feast—but I was watching some news coverage today and saw people practically calling for the deaths of Angelina and Brad, so it seems like it's not just the media being obsessed with the film. On the other hand, I noticed quite a few people in Canada are commenting on the movie too.

And I'm with you on the idea that Anja was trying to play Mother Teresa. From what I've heard, the film is about some member of the so-called genocidal VRS who has a Canadian woman as a girlfriend and also rapes her (???). I honestly don't know how realistic that is, but I suspect she went that route because it's her first film as a director; since she wasn't sure how it would turn out, she grabbed a sensitive subject to try and win over the critics.

Heh 😁 master mind indeed... just to be clear, I had the exact same thought!

electriccanyon26 said:A play, a drama text, and finally a performance—that’s theater. A drama belongs to literature, much like a libretto is a literary work; however, once you combine a libretto with a performance, you have an opera. Don't tell me I need to get my act together; you're the one who's confused here. I'm just trying to help.

A drama isn't theater. It's literature that happens to be performable on stage, or since film exists, it can be adapted for the screen. Guess What, you can actually read a drama. Some plays aren't even practical for the stage (think Maeterlinck or early Krleža), so they find their soul in film instead.

Movies don't necessarily rely on theater to get to the screen.

electriccanyon26 said:Well done. What do you even call that? I'm finished here and have nothing left to ask. There’s no point in arguing further; you'll just keep defending those impulsive posts and conclusions, when really, you're just defending your own lack of understanding. Have a good night. And seriously, go read some drama text or a comedy.

I assume you're all still in elementary school, so maybe go ask your teachers to explain this to you...

And calling a comedy a drama is pretty bold, buddy 😛

good night. Try repeating screenplay written by the play like a mantra 432 times before bed; maybe it'll clear things up for you tomorrow.

electriccanyon26 said:Are you going to claim in your next post that there are no plays based on movies either?

Here is an answer for you and your slang:
I know a film student who wrote a script for his own play, performed by actors currently in training—it was an amateur production, of course. The man wrote the text from his own mind; that text is a literary work (who says otherwise?), it can be read as literature, and its genre is drama (there is such a thing as comedy, if you weren't aware). If someone decides to make a movie later, will it be based on that script or the stage play the script was originally written for?

The movie would be based on the literary work that came out of your friend's head. Basically, an adaptation of that text. Not some amateur performance in a field.

And you still haven't answered my question: which plays were actually made based on movies?

electriccanyon26 said:So what exactly would he grab instead? What? Curious actors? If a director wants to make a "more literal" adaptation of a play—and I mean a PLAY—actors will CERTAINLY head to the theater where that play is originally being performed just to get some inspiration for their roles, if nothing else. If a director wants to make their own version, fine, but who's to say that isn't based on a production? Some movies are based on stage shows that aren't even the plays you're talking about! What then? Do we say: "the film is based on a text written for the theater that has only ever been staged in a theater?" Like I said before: it's all the same thing.

Both theater and film have their own writers and scripts; whether we say a film is based on a stage script or just based on a theatrical production doesn't really matter. There are plenty of stage plays written based on movies; are those plays based on the film or based on the film's screenplay? Honestly, what are we even debating here?

They can go or not go, they can prep for a movie one way or another, but the fact remains: they are making the film based on Shakespeare's play (the BOOK), not some specific stage production of Hamlet.

Every single show in a drama theater is a play, kid, aside from the vaudeville, cabaret, or certain Eastern theatrical styles that barely work on screen... so, besides those, what other kind of plays are there that aren't plays?

And which plays are written based on movies?

What are you even rambling about?

electriccanyon26 said:Don't you see that a written drama—take >, for instance, which I assume we've all read—can be taken straight to a theater where you follow the actors word for word. THAT DRAMA IS THEATER. It lives in the THEATER; it is meant for the THEATER. WHAT IS SO CONFUSING ABOUT THAT?

Look, it seems like you need a visual aid just to wrap your head around this.



Take Hamlet. That's a book containing literary text.

John Smith is a theater director who likes the play, so he decides to stage it at the Globe Theatre in London.

Paul Smith is a film director who decides to adapt it. He hires a screenwriter WHO DOESN'T GO TO THE THEATER to watch the play, but instead picks up the book and writes a screenplay. Then the actors prepare, as they always do (some might even drop by to see the actors currently performing Hamlet at the Globe Theatre just to see how they handle it. Curiosity, right? Maybe Paul Smith is just curious and will show up to see how John Smith staged it). But they aren't making a movie based on a stage production; they're making it based on the book.

DO YOU GET IT NOW?

electriccanyon26 said:Nothing at all. You're just accusing me of having an issue with it... I don't get why you feel the need to strip away the most fundamental element—theater—from a drama that was originally written for the stage long before cinema even existed. You claim Kurosawa adapted it his own way and that theater isn't relevant here? Why? Claiming a drama has nothing to do with the theater is just an invention of yours and Laura Palmer25.

Where did I ever say drama isn't connected to the theater? My point is that a film based on a play doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the theater—not the drama itself.