rafaelvanhoz-12729 The movie is good. A classic, because is aways remembered. It is only missundestood. It is not erotic movie. A good movie.

ironhorse_iv While this movie was pretty known in the 1990s, for being one of the several movies where Demi Moore appears topless, it's probably more memorable, today for having been panned by the critics and winning several Razzie Awards, including "Worst Picture of 1996" than anything else. After all, not a lot of Millennials, might know, who Demi Moore is, since she pretty much, barely acts, these days. Directed, produced, and written by Andrew Bergman, Striptease tells the story of Erin Grant (Demi Moore), former FBI secretary/single mother who has turned to stripping to earn enough money to gain legal custody of her young daughter, Angela (Rumer Willis), while also finding herself, matching wits with a lustful United States Congressman, David Dillbeck (Burt Reynolds), and his powerful corporate backer, Malcolm Moldowsky (Paul Guilfoyle) in order to get her job back with the FBI. Without spoiling the movie, too much, I have to say, the movie is somewhat directionless. It doesn't know, if it wants to be, a political thriller, or a sex comedy. There were a lot of pointless scenes that really goes, nowhere that weren't exciting, nor funny. If that wasn't bad, enough, the plot for this movie doesn't make much logic in real-world sense. Honestly, what type of a judge, allows a criminal with a record, visitation rights, much less sole custody, because the other one is a stripper? I get that, the book explains it by saying that the local cops buried Erin's ex-husband, Darrell (Robert Patrick)'s record when he agreed to be an informant, however, that probably wouldn't happen in real life as well. I have to say, there is a huge difference, between the film version of 'Striptease' and the 1993 novel of the same name, by Carl Hiaasen, as well, despite some critics, playing the screenplay is pretty faithful to the book, which it is not. One of the biggest difference is that, the environmental message has been left out. There is little to no mention of the subplot about the plutocracy of sugar growers in Florida, and the exorbitant subsidies regularly granted to them by the U.S. Congress. Another big change that the film did, is how a lot of supporting characters of the novels were either demoted to nameless cameos, or cut from the film, all together. A good example of this, is the character, Joyce Mizner, who played, a semi big part, as the fiancée of the man, Dilbeck attacks, but as of my knowledge, doesn't appear in the film. Honestly, whatever, did happen to her? Another change from the novel, is what happen to Erin's ex-husband, Darrell toward the end. I get that, there were concerns that the ending of the film, being too dark, not comical enough; but all of these rewrites and reshoots, did nothing, but cause delays & make the ending, somewhat anticlimax. It wasn't good. I get that, audience didn't want, Burt Reynolds to be, a violent villain, but how can, Reynolds show that he is a good actor, if he only plays over the top comical characters. It really does limited his acting range and somewhat typecast him. Because of that, I really couldn't get behind, this cartoony Congressman character, at all. It was really, nothing new from the actor. Not only that, but his character does a lot of annoying, and somewhat too gross & pervy things, I really didn't want to see. All of the jokes, with him, really does fall flat. It was a little too, much for me to take, much like Robert Patrick's character, who I also easily equally dislike. Honestly, if there was one character, that I somewhat like, from this film, it has to be the bouncer, Shad (Ving Rhames). While Ving Rhames's acting is mediocre, at best, with his stone-cold expression. At least, he's one of the only actors in the film, that didn't make a fool of themselves, along with the other, being Paul Guilfoyle & Armand Assante as FBI agent, Al Garcia. Then, there is Demi Moore, whom dour acting in this, is mostly meh. It's just so jarring and awkward to see, her single-parent plot, be, taken so serious, compare everything else. It felt like too different types of movies, here, being mixed together. Maybe, if she had more flair, it could had help the movie, but it really wouldn't matter. Her character was so badly written, so I can't say, she's the worst thing about this film, because she's clearly not. Her sex appeal is the only one that keeps this movie from falling apart and somewhat marketable. Still, Demi Moore kinda ruin movie's much-advertised nudity and eroticism, by promoting this film, looking like a masculine butch than a femme woman. I get that, she was filming 1997's 'G.I Jane' at the time. However, her muscle bound frame and bald head were really distracting, and made people, more interested in finding out, what 'G.I Jane' was about, than what 'Striptease' was telling us. No wonder, why this movie failed at the box office. It also didn't help that this film was association with the previous year's film about nude dancers, 1995's 'Showgirls'. Both films were highly criticize, for its sleazy premise, and because of that, some critics were a little too judgmental on the subject matter. In my opinion, I don't think the movie is the worst. The stripteases sequence are choreographed to present the strippers as seasoned pros, indifferent to their nudity and disdainful of their customers. However, due to the awkward humor and somewhat unlikeable characters. I can somewhat agree. This film is not good. It's a movie in limbo.

MartinHafer "Striptease" is a multi-award winning picture. Unfortunately, these are Razzie Awards---awards given for god-awful films and performances. It received an amazing seven nominations and took home six awards--including Worst Movie and Worst Actress! This puts the film is a very unique league...as few films have been nominated or won like "Striptease". This alone is the reason I watched the film...I was curious how bad this bad movie could be.The film is about Erin, a divorced mother whose husband is a trashy criminal...yet we are to believe the judge game HIM custody. Regardless, this ex- made sure she lost her job and now she has been 'forced' to become a stripper. With no experience, she instantly becomes a star attraction and the men in the club go positively insane when she dances. During one of these times, a crazy congressman (Burt Reynolds) gets out of control and soon all sorts of unforeseen situations result.So is this really a bad film? But what's surprising is that it's basically an ultra-low budget trash film...or that's what it looks like. Yet, inexplicably, the movie had a HUGE budget--including $12,000,000 for its star, Demi Moore!! Why they chose her, I have no idea as her appearing semi-naked didn't help the film to become a success. Instead, they could have easily gotten a cut-rate stripper and saved a LOT of money. And I think this huge budget and big studio treatment for essentially a trash film is why it got so many Razzies. If it was just some cut-rate trash film, no one would have noticed it and the film would have quickly disappeared. The film suffers because it's a bizarro script that seldom makes sense, has characters who simply are caricatures instead of believable members of the human race and because the film cannot decide what it wants to be. Is it a comedy? Is it a raunchy film? Is it a drama about a mother trying to regain custody of her kid? Is it a murder mystery? Is it a film about politics and the abuse of power? Is it an episode of "The Jerry Springer Show"? Any one of these might have worked...but together the film is just brain-achingingly weird and nonsensical--especially by the very end. Not bad enough to have earned 6 Razzies...but pretty bad.

bh_tafe3 It was with some surprise a few months ago that I read a list of worst movies ever made and this one was mentioned. This was surprising for a couple of reasons: the first one being that I'd forgotten the film existed, the second being that I struggled to remember any details from it that would lead to me to feel strongly enough about it to say it was the worst movie I've seen.And so, for some reason, I opted to watch this again. As I suspected, it was a waste of my time that achieved nothing of any value and took the cumulative total of minutes this film took away from me that I will never ever get back to 234. I can only assume director Andrew Bergman met Satan at an abandoned fork of a road in the deep south for this one to bring in $113 million world wide.Striptease is not good, not at all. The performances are bizarre, the script is not funny or sexy and even the soundtrack just doesn't fit. Demi Moore seems to have got her money's worth on highly publicized breast implants and is in fine physical condition, but still somehow unwatchable. Having said that though, this is no trainwreck. The actors all know what they're doing. The scenes are all strung together in a coherent narrative. This may not be any good, but it isn't incompetent either, and that makes things even worse.At the end of the day, unless you have a Demi Moore fetish, you will remember nothing about this movie. You'll forget that Burt Reynolds or Robert Patrick are in it. You'll forget that Moore's character had a child. In time you will forget the film exists. It's simply not bad enough to be entertaining or memorable, or worthy of any thought, positive or negative. And that is the film's biggest crime. Ultimately, Striptease is a giant black hole of nothing.