I can see why Pamela Anderson is getting good reviews for her performance -- it's very raw, and you can still see the young showgirl inside the older woman, reflecting on everything that happened to the optimistic dancer in retrospect.

But, I think this is a film that's only elevated by the skill of its cast. The writing is uneven and feels like it needed a script doctor, like, lines feel like placeholders describing what the person is supposed to be feeling, not necessarily what a real person would be saying. so, people go around just saying their feelings to people, which feels to me stilted and awkward.

Also, there's way too much handheld camera, like I could see this movie causing motion sickness for people watching it on the big screen. There's a few other small gripes, like it could use a better choreographer; the dreamlike ending is ambiguous as to whether it's real or something else (like did she die?); the way the characters describe the Vegas show in their lines is different than what's shown; etc., but those are minor complaints from a nit-picker.

As I said the cast is great: Jamie Lee Curtis also gets a strong positive review as a hardened Vegas veteran, along with the younger stars and Dave Bautista, they do what they can with what would be a mediocre film without them.

so, I recommend the movie, I think there's some people who are going to consider it a classic despite its weaknesses, and although I don't think it'll win any Oscars it has a lot of characteristics that could get it there -- aging stars giving powerhouse performances, a Coppola in charge, an arthouse feel...sometimes this earns 'sleeper' Oscars that upset the blockbusters.
posted by AzraelBrown at 7:25 AM on January 13 [2 favorites]

super strong cast, agreed, with the exception of Billie Lourd. Her delivery was not great.

My main issue with the film, aside from a bunch of clumsy writing and some truly WTF scenes (like the whole mouse thing at the unrealistic mother-daughter dinner), was that the film's central question of "What will shelly do after the show closes?" is never answered, nor is an answer ever implied beyond her saying "I might do this or that, who knows!" And then she goes on stage and maybe hallucinates her daughter being there. THE END.

At least in The Wrestler, which has many obvious parallels to this film, he makes the decision to jump off of the ropes. Does he die? Maybe! Probably! We don't find out. But at least he made a choice that we witnessed. shelly just ends by performing and, from what we can see, enjoying herself. Now, maybe there is a terrible aftermath, or maybe she just lives out her days as a cocktail waitress and has a great rapport with her daughter. We can't really guess because she never makes a firm decision, and there are no context clues in the movie to point us in a specific direction. Even the way the film starts - at the top of her doomed audition - doesn't really add to the story in the way that it could have when the film eventually reaches that point.

The film was adapted from a much longer play which had more details. I'd love to read that play.

I agree that it is worth seeing to witness Pamela Anderson exercising her acting chops. Beyond that, I'm not so sure. I hope to see her in more stuff going forward.
posted by grumpybear69 at 8:44 AM on January 13 [2 favorites]

Also, there's way too much handheld camera, like I could see this movie causing motion sickness for people watching it on the big screen.

This - I stuck it out, but it definitely impacted my enjoyment and I felt nauseated for several hours after. If i had known in advance I may have waited to watch on a smaller screen.
posted by I_Love_Bananas at 1:03 PM on January 13 [1 favorite]