Reel Rumbles #28 – “Burlesque” vs. “Showgirls”

Chad Hoolihan

Having no affiliation with any spiritual or philosophical movements, Chad instead attempts to find meaning through watching movies.  He also enjoys  watching birds fight over food in supermarket parking lots.

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. johnmason says:

    This was well-written; very nice.

    I saw Showgirls many years ago, and mostly didn’t like it. I’ll never see Burlesque. But this was still an entertaining read.

    You do have to give Verhoeven credit for the sheer over-the-top-ness of Showgirls…

  2. KingofPain says:

    I knew when I started writing this that trying to justify Showgirls as a good movie wouldn’t fly with most people, so I tried to put in perspective. If a person goes to see Burlesque for Christina Aguilera, my arguments probably won’t mean much. But if they go because they want an over-the-top trashy spectacle, then my arguments are valid. Showgirls delivers the goods far more generously than Burlesque. I don’t think Burlesque is bad, but it’s just so typical and blah. Compared to Mariah Carey’s Glitter, though, it’s almost a masterpiece.

    I figure this Reel Rumbles will only be relevant to a few people, anyway. How many have seen both movies and actually like Showgirls? The best I can hope for is that some people might look at Showgirls in a new light. Probably not. But, yeah, Paul Verhoeven came up with a movie no one else could’ve pulled off as entertainingly. Or, at least, no one else would’ve likely tried to pull it off in the same way.

  1. March 1, 2011

    […] Read what Flickchart blogger Chad Hoolihan had to say about Burlesque in the Reel Rumbles post against Showgirls. […]