There are bad movies and there are "bad movies"; if you're a fan of Underground trash cinema, I'm telling you nothing new. There are films like "Plan 9 from Outer Space", "The Room" and the works of directors like Uwe Boll and Ulli Lommel. Some are so "bad, that they're good"; others are others so bad, that the only entertaining factor is reading the mocking critics, reviews and commentaries.
You can say everything malignant that comes to mind about those films, but at least they are still films; technically speaking.
The same cannot be said about "Showgirls: Exposed". You may have noticed the absence of plot-outline or synopsis for this piece of "work" – that's mainly because there really is no story or plot; only a loose connection of shoddily assembled shots and pictures, most feature strip-dancers in the seedier side of Frankfurt's red-light district. Intertwined are scenes 'borrowed' from "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari", random people waving toy guns and the vaguest of suggestion, that this is a movie about murder, the mafia, drugs and, well, showgirls.
"Showgirls: Exposed" is not an easy film to find. Your best chance at purchasing the whole 60 minutes is at a popular online shop – but be warned: of the handful of people who had too much cash and bought the film, most have left bitter, vitriol-filled comments on the shops review section.
You may have read the other glowing reviews on this page and wondered, whether you had seen the same film; you may have come to the conclusion that those reviews had spilled over from a parallel universe, where Stanley Kubrick was born blind and Steven Spielberg never went beyond filming with his father's hand-held video-camera. However, the answer may be simpler than that and, perhaps you've guessed it already: director Marc Vorlander has personally graced this page, not only with one review but with two (so far).
See, Vorlander belongs to a rather strange assembly of Underground-Trash-cinema fans, for whom blogging, forum-surfing and producing films have become synonymous. Mostly those productions are figments of the imagination, (as are skills, talent and an imaginary budget of $25+ million), but the wish remains the father of the thought. A generation of directors for whom every video-clip recorded on a cell phone is worthy of an IMDb entry and to whom responding to every mocking comment made on the internet has become a way of life.
So, is this the worst movie ever made? I leave those, who've seen every single movie ever made be the judge of that, but I can honestly say that this is the worst film, which asks for money, that I've ever come across. And yes, giving that one unwarranted, yet mandatory point made me feel slightly nauseous.
PS: if the next review should mention that my review was the most perfect review ever composed by human hands and that chief-editors should rush out to hire this brilliant man – well, I'm not going to lie to you: it may have been written by myself.
You can say everything malignant that comes to mind about those films, but at least they are still films; technically speaking.
The same cannot be said about "Showgirls: Exposed". You may have noticed the absence of plot-outline or synopsis for this piece of "work" – that's mainly because there really is no story or plot; only a loose connection of shoddily assembled shots and pictures, most feature strip-dancers in the seedier side of Frankfurt's red-light district. Intertwined are scenes 'borrowed' from "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari", random people waving toy guns and the vaguest of suggestion, that this is a movie about murder, the mafia, drugs and, well, showgirls.
"Showgirls: Exposed" is not an easy film to find. Your best chance at purchasing the whole 60 minutes is at a popular online shop – but be warned: of the handful of people who had too much cash and bought the film, most have left bitter, vitriol-filled comments on the shops review section.
You may have read the other glowing reviews on this page and wondered, whether you had seen the same film; you may have come to the conclusion that those reviews had spilled over from a parallel universe, where Stanley Kubrick was born blind and Steven Spielberg never went beyond filming with his father's hand-held video-camera. However, the answer may be simpler than that and, perhaps you've guessed it already: director Marc Vorlander has personally graced this page, not only with one review but with two (so far).
See, Vorlander belongs to a rather strange assembly of Underground-Trash-cinema fans, for whom blogging, forum-surfing and producing films have become synonymous. Mostly those productions are figments of the imagination, (as are skills, talent and an imaginary budget of $25+ million), but the wish remains the father of the thought. A generation of directors for whom every video-clip recorded on a cell phone is worthy of an IMDb entry and to whom responding to every mocking comment made on the internet has become a way of life.
So, is this the worst movie ever made? I leave those, who've seen every single movie ever made be the judge of that, but I can honestly say that this is the worst film, which asks for money, that I've ever come across. And yes, giving that one unwarranted, yet mandatory point made me feel slightly nauseous.
PS: if the next review should mention that my review was the most perfect review ever composed by human hands and that chief-editors should rush out to hire this brilliant man – well, I'm not going to lie to you: it may have been written by myself.