Shortbus (Unrated Edition) Reviews

• Love Uncensored

  
  By A381I228B70YMD on 2006-12-16
  I will admit, One of the main reasons I wanted to see this movie was because of the buzz about it being one of the most sexually explicit movies ever made in the non-porn industry. I didn't really expect to find the movie interesting, I just wanted to see what everyone was talking about.
  
  The first minute or so was nothing but explicit sex and I almost turned the movie off thinking it was going to be pointless, that this was all there was to the movie, but I had nothing better to do so I kept watching.
  
  This movie is not porn, nor is it erotica. This movie IS an uncensored look at the truth about love and sex, and is probably one of the best movies I have ever seen. It is brutally honest, thought provoking, intense at times, and funny at others. These are characters that we can relate to, because they are real.
  
  I can not say enough positive things about this movie, it is art, it is truth, it is exceptional.
  
  It will definitely be a part of my DVD collection.
  
  

• Boom!

  
  By A1TJPMB7N776WS on 2007-01-04
  Any supposedly straight (as opposed to a soft or hard pornographic film) that begins with a montage of sex scenes featuring both men and women in full disclosure is alright with me.
  That I was witnessing this montage in a suburban multiplex (ok albeit an "art house") eating popcorn popped in Canola Oil and sipping a diet Sprite, sitting next to two blue hairs (who promptly exited, only after it might be noted, the completion scenes) only added to the surrealism of the situation.
  Jamie (played by PJ DeBoy with a hang dog expression and tear welled eyes of which you soon grow weary) begins the film totally nude, filming himself auto fellating but blows the scene by doing just that too early.
  Jamie is gay and a former street hustler and lives with James (Paul Dawson) in a decidedly one-way relationship: James loves Jamie and Jamie loves himself and says that he "feels nothing, nothing at all."
  Jamie and James consult a sex therapist, Sofia (Sook Yin Lee) for help and guidance and during their first session, Sofia blurts out that she has never had an orgasm.
  The solution? All three hoof it out to Shortbus: a sort of Plato's Retreat in which all manner of sex is performed in every position by every conceivable combination of men and women. Not all participate, no one is pressured, many just watch pretty much as we in the audience are doing: mouths agape, wondering how did Mitchell get the money to make this movie and more to the point: how did he get it released?
  Justin Bond (played by himself), manager/chorus master/drum majorette of Shortbus describes and dissects the Club's ethos as "like the 60's but with less hope."
  Director John Cameron Mitchell (the brilliant "Hedwig and the Angry Inch") wants to titillate of course but he also wants to illuminate. And most of his characters do come out the backdoor better, smarter more self aware than when they entered. Not everything works. Some scenes are awkward and silly but Mitchell infuses the film with energy and social and emotional weight that cannot be denied.
  Redemption through the cleansing and illuminating properties of Sex? Revolutionary.
  
  
  

• "You've got to pull the bus over . . . You're not riding safely . . . Park."

  
  By A2LW5AL0KQ9P1M on 2007-03-21
  Strange as it seems, I watched "This Film is Not Yet Rated" and "Shortbus" in the same day. And some part of me wondered ... did John Cameron Mitchell even bother to submit this to the MPAA? Not, of course, because he expected to receive a "passing-grade" from the prudish parents (and the two members of the clergy) that run the ratings and appeals board ... but simply to force the cloistered collection of puritans to watch couples attempting to negotiate their sexuality.
  
  The fantastic ensemble cast is phenomenal at arousing laughter, compassion, and perhaps a few tears. Moreover, in a weird way, watching Sofia navigate the Shortbus haven is kind of like a return to high-school parties: everyone is making out, someone is crying in the closet, a couple of people are watching television, a group of desperate goofs are playing "spin the bottle," and your boyfriend (or girlfriend) is bored. Ohh, and you never leave very satisfied:)
  
  What surprised me was how this film could have been painfully predictable, but was not. For instance, in the film's introduction, Sophia expresses that she has never climaxed with her husband. When she explores Shortbus, she meets Severin (a tortured dominatrix). When the two women bond and become intimate, the viewer is convinced that satisfaction will come from another woman. Not so (thank goodness!). In fact, she is betrayed by Severin's greedy lust. This is an unexpected, painful, and realistic turn for the film. I applaud the fact the Mitchell complicates sex ... there are no easy answers for Mitchell (Thank you!!)
  
  Unlike some of the reviewers here, I do not think "less is more." We have lived with "less is more" for way too long. We Americans think sex is shameful ... and if any films include it, they better be hidden in back rooms ... behind ugly beaded curtains. These films invariably degrade both sexes and they degrade sex itself. This film shows Americans loving-couples (in many cases real-life couples) engaging in consensual sex. It illustrates the complications and beauty of these relationships. Never does it condescend. Instead, it graceful allows its viewers to become welcomed voyeurs ... we learn as we watch. We experience the joy and frustration of these characters. It is ... quite marvelous.
  
  If you are tired of films that ignore the pleasures of sex for women (ignore, or as we learn from "This Film is Not Yet Rated," simply are not permitted to show WOMEN enjoying sex), if you are searching for a film which treats the sex-life of gay men with playfulness and respect, if you are desperate for a film which makes sex "sexy," messy, and complicated, then give Shortbus your attention.
  
  But if films with gay men pleasuring each other and women finding pleasure at all, turn you off ... well, you may as well return to the area behind the beaded curtain. The rest of us will hope that Mitchell continues to build upon his ground-breaking works!
  
  Thank you, Mr. Mitchell!
  
  

• Searching...

  
  By ASH1OD9TSH95X on 2007-01-12
  Americans are so hung up about sex: Show an american a sex-scene and they totally loose their marbles, and the film rating system reflects this. This film is about people trying to find completion in their life, whether it's having an orgasm, having a sense of self-worth, realizing ones dreams.
  
  The film attempted to tackle the dispair felt by a group of people outside the normal moires of society. The shortbus club provided an accepting community, a place where the main characters could be themselves, in the same manner that the sexual therapist attempted to provide a safe place for her clients to talk through their problems.
  
  An excellent movie, sure to provoke some reaction in the viewing audience.
  
  
  
  

• Absolutely incredible!

  
  By A20NHH0JRGITTF on 2007-01-04
  I don't know if any of you heard the hoopla that was going around about this film, or even if you heard of it at all, but here it is in a nutshell: John Cameron Mitchell (Hedwig and the Angry Inch) wanted to make a movie that doesn't turn sex into a dirty thing but at the same time doesn't hide sex either. The big controversy over Shortbus is the fact that it definitely does NOT hide the sex. It's all there in it's full glory with full penetration and everything...even an orgy or two.
  
  Now that that's out of the way...Shortbus is not a porn movie. It's not even one of those high class Michael Lucas porn movies that have stories in between all the sex.
  
  What it is is a story about a handful of people who meet each other and who are all broken in some way. The sex therapist who has never had an orgasm. The former hustler who thinks he's only worth what people paid for him. The dominatrix who longs to be an artist and live in a house.
  
  They all meet and revolve around each other in a search for themselves. And it's a fun movie and frank and open and it celebrates life and sex and living...
  
  I'm torn about the actual sex in the movie, however. I think the movie would've been just as effective--and much more palatable to the wide audience that it deserves--without the full on sex but at the same time the sex was part of the story and woven into it so well that you really don't think about it. You're certainly not going to be getting off to it even with the full on penetration and fellatio and rimming--including one hilarious scene where three characters are having sex and they all start singing the Star Spangled Banner...one of them singing the song into the posterior of one of the others!--and S&M, etc.
  
  Regardless of that I honestly think this was an incredible film. When it was over I felt good and I can't say that about many movies.
  
  If you're open minded and not put off by people having actual sex in a non pornographic film definitely check Shortbus out. It was an amazing film and definitely worth watching.
  
  
• kudos to JCM, and i loved the movie, but . . .
  By A1KXKYKJBOYNDJ on 2007-02-10
  first, let me say that i did enjoy this film. very much. as a sexually open person myself who thinks that many people's hang-ups about sex (doing it, talking about it, watching it) border on the ridiculous, i found it refreshing and exciting and humorous and lots of fun. i admire and applaud john cameron mitchell for taking on such a project and actually making it happen. that being said . . . i wanted more from it. it played out like a standard issue porn flick, really: scene, scene, sex, scene, scene, sex. as it stands, you could take out all of the graphic sex scenes and it would play like a typical mainstream relationship film. i wanted something dramatic and cathartic to happen DURING the sex, some angry naked confrontation, or an intense and intimate monologue. some of my most open and frank conversations with another person have occurred before, during, or just after sex, and i wanted to see more of that. even some casual nude scenes between the actors - you can be naked with a person and not be screwing them. one of the best parts of being in a couple is the ability to "hang out" naked. granted, all the actors did a stellar job, and to appear in this film was a fairly brave thing to do. but why not push them further and really test out what they can do? the novelty of having the graphic sex in the film became almost dull after a while (maybe that was part of the point?), because none of it really, truly advanced the plot much. there were a couple great moments, though: jamie bursting into tears after his orgasm during the opening credits; the look that is exchanged between the woman being screwed in the club and the therapist watching; the older gay man talking to the young gay man in the club and then realizing that he is about to be ditched in favor of the younger, prettier man across the room (been there!); and the "star spangled banner" scene was terrific. but the therapist confessing her own problems to her patients? wouldn't happen - a very "non-genuine" scene - she should have her license taken away! and the remote control vibrator scene? i didn't believe it for a moment - true humor comes from truth, and that played very poorly - it was thrown in for the sake of a laugh, at the expense of the characters. and did i miss something: why was jamie suicidal? why couldn't the therapist have an orgasm? and how did both situations get "fixed"? or did they, really? not that everything has to wrap up nicely in a pretty bow by the end credits (i really don't mind the "unanswered question" that seems to be so verboten in american films), but these were pretty important plot points. i did like that the man in drag who owned the club got to engage in some sexy stuff himself, but i am a bit tired of the earthy, world-weary, sarcastic, seen-it-all drag queen character who imparts wisdom and witticisms to her underlings. i did have a great time watching this film, and i want to see it again (for the plot points AND the sex!), but all in all i found "hedwig" much more moving, and was hoping for more of that sort of thing in this film. maybe in "shortbus 2: jamie's revenge"? :)
  
  
• Unfortunate that this movie did not attract more viewers in theatres
  By A26ZIXC3W8FMWC on 2006-12-25
  This is an outstanding movie about working through dysfunctional relationships. It left me with a warm happy feeling. I was surprised that reviewers dwelled on the nudity and sexual activities. Maybe readers who did not know or recognize John Cameron Mitchell's name from Hedwig, were put off by the suggestion that this might be a pornographic movie. That's just not so. Sex is part of life, and definitely an important part of human relationships. Its presence was simply honest and real.
  
  For me, the takeaway message was that we're all riding the Shortbus in one way or another, so be kind to ourselves and each other.
  
  
• Cinematic Masterbation
  By ANMJJITAF8PUG on 2007-04-02
  Look, first let me say that I LOVED Hedwig and the Angry inch. So of course I was excited to hear that John Cameron Mitchel was going to do a movie that was going to skewer the preoccupation of the ratings boards with promoting violence over sex by producing a mainstream movie with sex scenes as an integral part.. I felt that it was long overdue thought it would be an entertaining and important movie.
  
  Fast forward to the reality... Mr. Mitchell has obviously been living for too long in the post Hedwig Bubble leaving him completely out of touch with real life. It isn't groundbreaking nor does it challenge conventional wisdom when you make a movie containing explicit sex scenes in which the plot revolves in a large part around sex. (Please spare me the "It's about relationships" line. These relationships were so artificial they make Cool Whip look Natural.
  
  Basically the movie is a pseudo-intellectual higher budget version of a 3rd year film students performance art project. It relies on dialog that would be unrealistic anywhere but a womyns studies retreat or in an abnormal psychology class. The problem with being a success in the film arts world is obviously a lack of ability in figuring out what is realistic behavior and what isn't.
  
  If you really honestly want to turn convention on it's ear and show the film ratings for the hypocrisy that they are with regards to sex on screen it would pack a much larger punch, to show a conventional plotline with the sex scenes not edited out. i.e. Pretty Women, have the hooker and the businessman have full sex. A James Bond style film, show the consummation with him and the foreign spy, a Horror film, have the couples have sex on screen before being killed etc...
  
  But to show a movie in which everybody is wondering around in a Zoloft induced haze stumbling into a sex club that is a pale imitation of stories about Berlin in the 1930's even to the addition to the cast of the host walking around imitating Joel Grey from Cabaret is just pure boring self indulgent pap. The end part, when one of the cast finally has anal sex with his stalker, then stands at the window catching the eye of his boyfriend in the apartment across the alley where they then begin to smile at each other may have sounded good after Mr. Mitchell's 3rd Pot brownie but frankly was just a lame attempt at a meaningful ending that was the last gasp of a movie drowning in it's own misguided self importance.
  
  To say I was disappointed after the promise of Hedwig would be putting it mildly. Hopefully John Cameron Mitchel can pump whatever well it was that gave him the inspiration for his first movie and stay away from the bad judgment and Juvenile outlook that produced this mess.
  
  
  
• Shorted Out
  By AQIO9QHHPFFET on 2007-01-15
  I got in trouble recently because I forgot to mention to someone that a really great film showed genitals and sexual activity. So--heads up, people! Shortbus is all about sex. Not only is it all about sex, but it shows sex and genitals. Actors and actresses are sometimes having sex on the screen.
  
  Now that that's out of way, for those of you into a little love with your sex, you'll find that too. But Shortbus is about all kinds of love: frustrated hetero love, homosexual love trifectas, roomfuls of people who love lots of people at once. It's about love for oneself and love for others. It's about satisfying the need for sexual orgasm and satisfying the need for friendship, attachment, commitment, and more emotional love. It deals with a troubled gay couple, a dissatisfied dominatrix-for-hire, a couples counselor who can't have an orgasm, and a wild club called Shortbus run by a cross-dresser who says the name comes because "special" people ride the short bus. That's true, yeah, but also emotionally, intellectually and socially stunted people ride the short bus, and you'll find those people, too.
  
  Try not to zone out when characters go off on extended monologues or when the musical scenes drown out the dialogue and drone a little too long, and you'll find some new, fun looks at relationships and sexuality for the 21st century.
  
  My personal opinion, though it differs from my wife, is this film suffers from the collaborative storytelling that involved Mitchell spending two years working with his performers to develop the plot and the characters. It's not as strong as it could have been with a single artist.
  
  
• A weak story saved by the lack of - believe it or not - gratuitous sex
  By A33CLVW2K7SL1P on 2007-03-30
  The reviews for this film are almost as entertaining to read and ingest as the movie itself. That may or not be a good thing. For example, here on Amazon, Shortbus is averaging 4½ stars as of this writing. On pro.imdb, it has a respectable 7.2/10 score from viewers. On Metacritic.com, the average critic rating is 64 (65 on RottenTomatoes.com), while the average user rating is 8.7/10. A conspicuous variance.
  
  I rented the movie for two reasons: 1) I find that Hedwig and the Angry Inch is not only a brilliant film, but it is also one of my top-10 favorites "of all time" and have been waiting for John Cameron Mitchell to come out with something new for a while, and 2) to be embarrassingly honest, to satisfy a carnal curiosity.
  
  Shortbus is a film focused on relationships and inner demons, and sex seems to have come along for the ride. In the opening scenes, we are witness to the most vivid sex I've ever seen on film that hasn't been classified as pornography, and these scenes were far "harder" than any soft core porn I've ever seen and in some cases better than the hard stuff, undoubtedly because this had the distinct stamp of feeling real. There's a young man auto-fellating (James, played by Paul Dawson), a "trust fund Muppet" and a Mistress (Justin Bond playing himself and Lindsay Beamish as Severin), and a heterosexual couple (Sook-Yin Lee as Sofia and Raphael Barker as Rob). Sofia and Rob have the most straightforward sex - pun intended? - as the first two scenes are more exploratory in theme and content. All end in shattering climaxes; indeed, James cries when he is finished; Justin hits the wall, so to speak, while Severin looks on, stunned; and Sofia finds her way to a rather convulsive end.
  
  Frankly, it was all rather steamy, and I wish I'd seen it in the theater, if only to look around and watch people squirm in their seats.
  
  And then we get to the meat of the matter. James's and his boyfriend Jamie see a sex therapist - Sofia - who prefers to be called a couples counselor. Their intention is to open up the relationship. As they talk, it's obvious to the viewer, and to Sofia, that Jamie has no life outside of James, and that the two appear to have very different agendas. She sends Jamie out of the room to talk to James alone, and after that, talks to Jamie alone. When you compare the Jamie that spoke to Sofia in her office to the Jamie throughout the rest of the film, you see a very different character. The Jamie in Sofia's office is, frankly, an idiot and immensely unlikable. Even Sofia slaps him. The Jamie throughout the rest of the book may be hyper-dependent on James, but he's warm, compassionate, and likeable.
  
  We learn that Sofia's slap was not only a reaction to Jamie's personality, but also because she is "pre-orgasmic", meaning that she's never had an orgasm. They suggest that she go to a place called Shortbus to help find relief to this.
  
  Shortbus (the place, not the film) is a world within a world, with the requisite transvestite caretaker and rooms upon rooms of deviance and compulsion. There is, of course, the large room where everyone is naked and having sex, and other rooms where people hang out with no clear purpose (this is a weakness in its structure). When Sofia enters, she bumps into James and Jamie, who are there to "work at" opening up the relationship.
  
  Severin is there too, and Sofia meets her as she flees the other rooms - too many men. They develop a friendship, and decide to help each other: Sofia will help Severin try to open herself up to having a more meaningful relationship than what she has with her johns, and Severin will try to help Sofia reach orgasm. It's not at all clear what qualifies Severin to help with this, and it's not even particularly clear why Sofia contacted Severin outside of Shortbus to be friends.
  
  James and Jamie find their third: Ceth (pronounced Seth), and we're treated to yet more sex. In an hysterical but somewhat uncomfortable moment, Jamie sings the Star Spangled Banner while, um, using Ceth's behind as a megaphone. Stranger yet, Ceth says that it wasn't the first time that's happened. The three do look very comfortable together.
  
  With all the pieces in place, the story begins to dramatize, and moves from the light hearted sexy romp into a darker place of inner demons. It's far less successful when the lights go out - and I mean this both figuratively and literally, as the story is set against a backdrop of increasing brownouts that eventually lead to a blackout.
  
  Every character is beset with demons, but none more so than James is. And somehow, in the end, they all achieve resolution. What I'm uncomfortable with is *how* they reached resolution, because what was presented didn't make an ounce of sense to me. It appears that sex opened doors for everyone to delve deeper inside, but here's a huge problem: with the singular exception of James, we have no idea what anyone's inner demons are. If we don't know what they are, how can we accept any form of resolution for them? And while we do learn of James's demons, his epiphany (or what he did to reach that epiphany) made no sense at all and was utterly unbelievable.
  
  The movie was loosely scripted, and it grew in the telling with the actors ad-libbed input. I might have guessed that fact if the film didn't tell us, because (as I illustrated with Jamie above) characters sometimes went against what I felt their core-values were, at least as they were established in the beginning segments of the film. It's a great concept, but without continuity, believability suffers.
  
  I'm on the fence with this. I'm tempted to give it two stars for a story that meandered and fell apart at the end, but they have to get credit for filming so much sex while none of it was gratuitous. At no time did the sexual situations ever seem overdone or out of place. That's one heck of an accomplishment, given how much flesh was shown. And there was a LOT of flesh. Men were erect and they climaxed - and we saw the result of their climax. We saw Sofia madly at work trying to give herself the big O, and were given, more than once, a very clear picture of her "sex". (I don't know how else to say it and escape Amazon's censors.
  
  3 stars for their accomplishment...
  
  
  
• Whiny and dull.
  By A2098ZCJTGRGFW on 2007-04-10
  Unfortunatly this movie does not live up to the hype. I expected aome soul searching with some sexy fun, instead i got tacky irony (sex therapist cant have orgasm) and dull navel gazing (im a dominatrix nobody loves me boo-hoo) (nobody understands me boo-hoo) (i dont feel complete wahhhhh) very boring. This movie does its best to take the fun out of sex. BORING. : ( EP.
  
  
• A pretty disappointing ride
  By A14E9I0FO6EVBT on 2007-04-18
  "Shortbus" is a strange mix of magic and social realism, which could make for a very witty, engaging film. This movie though flounders around in half-realized concepts which never really gel together. The dialogue comes off as trite and John Cameron Mitchell's vision of New York is full of whiny self-involved, emotionally underdeveloped people who hang out in a well-lit sex club. The sex scenes are the only fun in the film, but on the whole, "Shortbus" was a pretty disappointing ride.
  
  
• Porn with a Plot
  By A1YF0D703BV0YI on 2006-12-28
  This is a one of a kind. Sexy, spicy, unpretentious, and visually stunning.
  It has a wonderful complicated plot and has all the bells and whistles. A must see for the open minded and democrats.
  
  
• or how about "Eyes Wide Shut" directed by Russ Meyer
  By AD5EHUXF0K57F on 2007-01-08
  So I finally saw my first porno with somewhat convincing acting between orgy scenes, but still can't say I've seen one with a real plot. This comes off like "Sex and the City" if it had been directed by Marquis De Sade.
  
  
• A Gay Non-Gay Movie
  By A3Q1GB17EH17UD on 2007-03-08
  "Shortbus"
  
  A Gay Non-Gay Movie
  
  Amos Lassen and Cinema Pride
  
  "Shortbus" is the best gay Movie I have ever seen and it is not even a gay movie. What it does is explore the emotional and sexual loves of some beautiful and young New Yorkers. This is not something new being done in the world in the world of cinema we have seen many movies dealing with this group over the last few years. "Shortbus", however has something that the others did not have--honesty and this is what makes it both interesting and a good movie.
  The honesty of the film is seen through all aspects of the film--body, heart, mind and spirit. Physically, John Cameron Mitchell, the director, throws everything at you from the beginning. The movie is naked and the actors are naked. There is also a lot of sex in the movie and I mean actual sex not soft stuff. The sex is explicit be it gay or straight and there is couple's sex, group sex, solo sex, sex across generations and interracial sex. Titillate it does do-make the audience horny it doesn't. The sex is not filmed to arouse the audience. It is hot sex but it is not pornography. We know from what we have been taught that pornography is about the orgasm and art is about before and afterwards. "Shortbus" looks at both and is revolutionary in refusing to fit into any definition. At the same time that the movie shoes sexual explicitly, it engages the audience intellectually. Aside from just having sex, the characters have minds and they use them.
  Emotionally the movie is so honest that it hurts to watch sometimes. The beauty of the film is that it does not either celebrate or condemn experimental sex but rather explores it. Several areas of sexuality are explored like this--threesomes, sado-masochism, dominance and the relationship between love and lust. It, at times, seems as if all of the characters are sleeping with one another.
  Intellectually, we have yet to have a film deal with sex in this manner. We learn that there are no simple answers. Our characters are intelligent personally, sexually and spiritually. They question social mores and are on journeys of personal growth and self-improvement. Be it the traditional character like Sofia or the non traditional pair of gay lovers, all of the characters search for a better way.
  A gay man who is life-affirming must make a choice-a choice for pleasure, for love and against constraint which he inherited. One learns to be aware of his social and sexual surroundings. Once one has experimented, he will probably never go back to his old ways--it is impossible to return to a world where authority dictates what is right and what is wrong. Perhaps this is the reason why gay people have been fools and actors throughout history. We have been able to see through hypocrisy because it is bases on a lie that has been told for many, many years. Looking at sex realistically, half of the people of America believe that the only correct way to have sex is in the missionary position.
  "Shortbus" is a world where nothing is forbidden and there are no taboos. Group sex is presented to us as a fascinating way to express human complexity. "Shortbus" is a world where intelligent and emotionally open adults understand the power of sexuality.
  "Shortbus" depicts sex matter of factly and in terms of gay sex. Every aspect is represented in the film--transsexuals, lesbians, queens, etc.
  This is a mature film and we should be thankful that it has been made. Mitchell has given us a movie that looks at our lives honestly and as it does ushers in a new kind of revolutionary film. It is part of a process of discovery--both sexual and interpersonal. This is how the world should be and we can only hope that "Shortbus" will stop for us to get on one day soon.
  
  
  
• fab film
  By A1A84JOGOYS1QM on 2007-01-12
  yes there is explicit sex and nudity but don't let that either put you off or be your reason for watching this film.
  
  The fact that the sex is explicit and unashamed normalises it and allows sexual conductn to be viewed in its context on the same basis as other conduct.
  
  I can't wait to see it on DVD.
  
  
• SEXUAL DISCOVERY MADE TEDIOUS
  By AGNYBRFRUHSS0 on 2007-03-23
  Although the director is a major talent and a truly nice person, SHORTBUS is almost impossible to contemplate without a remote control. . . WITH YOUR FINGER ON THE FAST FORWARD BUTTON. The often attractive actors become remarkably banal once they open their mouths. This is like an early Greg Araki film but with sex scenes replacing the rebellious wit. All the funny lines, in fact, can be found in the trailer. As for the sexual carryings-on, unless you have never watched a pornographic film before, you'll wonder what the big deal is about.Then there's the actor portraying former New York City Mayor Ed Koch, you'll wish he remained in the closet along with Ed. SHORTBUS, in the end, is truly all over the place, and when you watch the deleted scenes, you'll realize the reason why: no one was really in control. What in the world is that dialogue with the nosy neighbor talking to the President on his cell phone? Improvisation in film is truly hard to carry off. Christopher Guest frequently gets it right. Cameron, however, apparently requires a strong screenplay to carry forth his highly applaudable notions of total sexual liberation with any depth. In the end, Shortbus is a flaccid ride to nowhere.
  
  
• it blows!!!
  By A1M41U1ZKJD8YI on 2007-04-04
  Integrating graphic (and oddly monotonous) sex scenes into an indie serio-comic relationship comedy (think of a typical Jennifer Aniston-type NYC bachelorette feature with antiseptic hardcore sequences), does not an interesting movie make. Booooring! Hedwig, this ain't.
  
  
• Long Ride on a Short Bus
  By AQQFI7YHMRL7S on 2007-03-18
  I purchased this DVD sight unseen because so many people told me I had to see it. Nay, so many people insisted that I simply HAD to own it. It was, they implied, the most revolutionary film ever released, and the next logical step in the Progression of Cinema - the Cinema of the Future. I'm sorry, but in the end, I was completely disappointed.
  
  Not that it didn't seem to have several things going for it, at least initially. To begin with, the film opens with the most candid and realistic depiction of sex I have ever seen in a non-pornographic film, and for a few minutes I thought I was viewing something genuinely revolutionary. And, also initially, it seemed to have a few candid and profound things to say about troubled relationships, until I figured out half-way through it that the characters in those relationships weren't really very interesting, or (with one exception) very likable, either.
  
  This cinematic sex-fest was immediately different from pornography in that, not only did it appear that the characters were really having sex, they seemed to be doing so in a perfectly natural manner. That is, the opening sequence seemed inhabited by real people, none of them extremely attractive (well, not to me), engaging in sex acts that appeared quite convincing. As anyone knows, the point of pornography is sexual titillation. Despite claims of "redeeming social value", all pornographic films exist so that the viewer may achieve prurient satisfaction from watching fantasy sex scenes with beautiful people. The sex in Shortbus is anything but arousing; the participants not only appear to be really having sex with each other (and I believe they actually were), the sex seemed downright mundane. So I was immediately struck by the believability of the opening scene, including the act involving a dominatrix prostitute, and one character's self-filmed auto-fellatio. Believe it or not, that's where reality ended, and surrealism began to seep in.
  
  The basic plot concerns a sex therapist named Sofia, played by the amazingly talented Sook-Yin Lee. Ms. Lee was easily the most engaging thing about Shortbus, and her performance alone was the most enjoyable aspect of the film; she also presented the most likable character. In the film, Sofia remarks several times that she does not want to be referred to as a sex therapist, but she prefers to be called a relationship counselor. I kept thinking that neither her character nor the film's creators seemed to be aware that a sex therapist and a relationship counselor are not the same thing. Anyway, Sofia is having her first session with a gay couple, James and Jamie, one of whom is a former child star and the other a former prostitute, when she inadvertently blurts out to them that she has never achieved an orgasm, despite her "perfect" relationship with her husband, Rob (who may or may not be gay himself). In a sort of bizarre role reversal, James and Jamie suggest to Sofia that she try Shortbus. What is Shortbus, exactly? I spent the rest of the film trying to figure that out.
  
  Shortbus appears to be some sort of combination sexual workshop / voyeur's retreat / cabaret, where those who are sexually confused, no longer attracted to their partners, or otherwise sexually hung up / inhibited / you-pretty-much-name-it can go to work out their sexual problems through uninhibited sexual play with a variety of partners and fellow sufferers. The biggest problem I had was that virtually all of the patrons of Shortbus seemed totally immersed in their own shallow worlds, endlessly crying about their sexual problems until working them out through hours of joyous, uninhibited sex. At one early point, one character remarks how hot the gay couple is. Aside from their youth, I didn't get what was supposed to be so hot about them, as I am generally neither into twinks nor vapid, shallow people. I didn't find much attractive about the rest of the cast, either.
  
  The film takes place in New York City. I am a gay man who has lived all my life in New York City, and I have never met people who even vaguely resemble the characters in Shortbus, nor would I want to. I can imagine (in fact, in the wild 1970's, I have even been to) places in NYC that resemble Shortbus (if for nothing else, the wild sexual orgies reflected therein) but such places, few and far between (and now largely extinct) would have been organized and run by the Mafia purely for profit, and patronized solely by the sexually compulsive, for no other reason than the sex itself. One would certainly not expect to find such a place filled with whole rooms of the sexually repressed, working their way to sexual health through a sort of sexual group therapy. And the first thing I noticed about the mythical Shortbus club (if one could call it a club - I still don't know what to call it) is that it seemed to be operated entirely on someone's charity. I never saw anyone collect an entrance fee, or discuss "terms of membership". I kept wondering how such a multi-roomed sex orgy / cabaret / sex therapy "establishment" could exist on the Island of Manhattan virtually for free, where a hamburger and a beer is likely to set you back $[...] these days, and even then you are hustled out the door of most restaurants in less than an hour. I got the impression that some of the inhabitants of Shortbus had been there for days, a prospect that seemed to me to be possible for the super-rich only.
  
  As I say, there were some aspects of the film I thought were genuinely worthwhile, mostly the comedic moments, and a few of those were genuinely funny (especially the appearance of a character clearly based on former mayor Ed Koch). The celebrated "Star Spangled Banner scene" struck me as puerile and tasteless, and I have never been accused of being a prude. I sure didn't enjoy it for the drama, which was strained throughout, and bordered on bad soap opera. Soap opera with sex. I have nothing against sex, but the soap opera-lives of the main characters were boring as could be. At one point, I glanced at the digital readout on my DVD player, and sighed as I realized I needed to sit through this movie for another hour, never a good sign. At the film's climax, everyone's self-absorbed problems seemed to be magically solved, and the whole cast gathered together for a good natured sing along. As the credits started to roll, I realized with a jolt that the few minutes of entertainment I managed to glean from the proceedings were not worth the amount of time I had wasted watching the film as a whole, and I rolled my eyes as I yanked the disc from the machine and filed it on my shelf, probably never to be watched again. Revolutionary? Perhaps, but the lapses in logic, the extreme surrealism (especially for a film touted for its realism) and the shallowness of its main characters all contributed to my ultimate dissatisfaction.
  
  I have heard nothing but great things about the director's earlier work, Hedwig and the Angry Inch, but after reading various reviews, I decided it probably wasn't for me. Now I guess I'll never know, because there is no way I intend to subject myself to another film by John Cameron Mitchell. And I expect to be very, very cautious in the future when someone tells me about a film I simply MUST own.
  
  
  
• not about sex, not about love - it's about...
  By A2SA7G6NCIUJ6O on 2007-01-19
  How sex and love help us grow as individuals and add greater depth to our self-understanding. It's an exceptional film if you look at it as an exploration of how we break down our self-imposed limits, try new things, and - sometimes - discover whole new territories within ourselves.
  
  
• Performance Art Gone Horribly Wrong
  By A3QRYGPH3MA7HD on 2007-04-01
  After reading the description and reviews of this movie I was really looking forward to seeing it. It sounded thought-provoking, intelligent and provocative. Unfortunately after the first few minutes the actors began to speak. The acting was fine, but the dialogue was ridiculous and by the end I didn't care about any of the characters. As another review said, this one is definitely a movie to watch with the fast forward button. Very disappointing.
  
  
• Amazing, Illuminating, Entertaining
  By AKA2WXZFC98M3 on 2007-04-12
  Having seen Hedwig and the Angry Inch, I was apprehensive about this movie. After all, Hedwig is a classic and John Cameron Mitchell had a lot to live up to. In all honesty, He really didn't live up to the brilliance of Hedwig and the Angry Inch, in fact, you can't even compare the two films as each is an independent, unique foray.
  
  Shortbus attempts (and succeeds) at focusing in on the importance of sexual identity and happiness in one's life. In a world where people are, more often than not, taught that self-sacrifice is the key to a happy life we are confronted with several characters who, somehow, manage to mirror our own lives in a way that exposes that hippocracy.
  
  For certain the film is graphic. It depicts sexual acts (both homo and hetero) in unabashed reality as a device to help lure the audience into believing that what they are seeing is real. By "docu"-filming in this manner, J.M.C., is able to connect with people on a level that a well-planned and thereby censored film could never achieve.
  
  While this movie certainly reflected my life and feelings regarding relationships, honesty, sex, and "morality", I suspect that anyone who has struggled with these issues who watches this movie with an open mind will benefit from it. This is the first and ONLY film, to date, that I have ever taken the time to praise.
  
  
• Modern morality
  By A2Z90HDIXUA65Q on 2007-03-17
  Excellent movie, particularly the 'straight' bits!. I am glad that censorship and self-censorship seem to be relaxing at last and moving with the times.
  
  
• What is this world coming to?
  By A2YWO22AOK6P2K on 2007-07-19
  It amazes me what is being passed off as fine moviemaking these days...this is about as awful as it gets. A movie about sex so vile that ironically it lacks any trace of sexiness. Or dignity. Or character development or story. Graphic sex aside, the "film" is more pornographic in the theme it so clumsily conveys: commitment be darned, sexual gratification is an individual right and the key to happiness.
  And don't even get me started on the acting.
  Makes me want to go re-rent "The Whales of August."
  
  
• That's another interesting way on seeing the Star Spangled Banner performed.
  By A3C6CZC2JP67VK on 2007-05-14
  "Shortbus" deals with many of the same issues as "Hedwig" and the "Angry Inch," but in a new and equally groundbreaking way. Yes, there is hardcore sex, and honestly, there should have been even more, it is used as another layer of paint on one of the most poignant canvases I have seen in years. This film is part of a new breed of cinema that dares to force actors to cross over the line from acting in a film and portraying a fictional character to actually being a subject in a documentary: the once strict line that distinguishes where a character begins and an actor ends has become totally blurred and is no longer recognizable for the actors or rather beautiful and real human beings who appear on screen in this film.
  
  As much as this film is about its characters and their lives, it is about the state of underground or lack of underground art and culture in New York City, particularly the lower east side art scene - a nostalgic yearning for a time and an age of culture and community that is sadly gone in present day Manhattan. Theoretically, "Shortbus" forces us to question the nature of the spectator in a movie theater, watching a TV screen or computer monitor, or looking through the viewfinder of a camera. It is rare for any film these days to ask and provoke the kind of emotional responses and questions about the nature of spectatorship, voyeurism, censorship, viewership, and pornography while at the same time pushing the boundaries of cinema, redefining cinematic, and fusing multiple aesthetic systems that "Shortbus" does in under two hours. The actors were earnest in their efforts (and brave to perform the sex scenes), although no Oscar-winning performances I'd say. I did find Paul Dawson to be quite effective in his ability to convey emotion, esp. in the scene where he's looking out the window at PJ DeBoy. Despite not speaking or moving, we can feel his emotion.
  
  A note about the ending without ruining anything: many people that will balk at it for not being realistic or digging deep enough or as deep as the rest of the film may be missing part of the point. The whimsical CGI animation used throughout the film should immediately tip you off to the fact that there is a magical fantasy element present in the storyline that is represented by "Shortbus" itself. This when combined with the nostalgic seedy underground art scene depicted in the film causes one to realize that the ending and resolution of each character's issues is in fact a just a continuation of that nostalgic fantasy for the bygone lower Manhattan cabaret scene, and thus adds another bitter sweet layer to the film. We can already guess the brutal reality of what will happen to each set of characters and their relationships in the film, but that doesn't mean it is what has to happen on screen. What happens inside "Shortbus" is a hopeful and optimistic fantasy set in a burlesque and erotic theatre of the absurd, what happens outside is our hardboiled reality.
  
  If you cannot find yourself somewhere in this film, somewhere in the mythical "Shortbus," you might not actually exist.
  
  
  
• Stimulating, provocative, introspective, and very orgasmic!!!
  By A1SPB225CVTRUU on 2007-03-07
  I must say that I was so curious about seeing this film for various reasons including the obvious why Sook-Yin Lee is this much talked about real-sex film by John Cameron Mitchell whose Hedwig movie was amazing. I have seen so much TV and films that are very far out there like Sex and The City, Nip/Tuck, and Queer as Folk, but it still didn't prepare me for a so suprisingly shocking film about sex, love, and relationship in New York. It's about gay, straight, bi, metro-sexual, and everything in between....
  
  Even the first 10 minutes of the film we are presented with scenes of real sex: the sex of various positions between Lee and her husband, the auto-fellatio(they actually show entire genital and actual ejaculation on camera...). Then it gets very wordy or conversational for a while until a ton of various sexual activities and orgies in the Shortbus club which the main setting of the film where Lee's sex therapist visits in pursuit to explore the depth of sex and relationships and ultimately she's the only woman there who is trying to experience her first orgasm. There is numerous moments the film looks very pornographic and documentary like. The main actors are very good and they all seem to be very comfortable to be part of the physical stuff. Sook-Yin is amazingly daring and vulnerable, and she was welling to really push the envelop doing this film. No wonder her boss from CBC threatened to fire her after she was cast for this film. She can act and she's much better actress than I had expected considered that she's more experinced as VJ and musician. I wonder if her family would accept her doing this film.
  
  Besides the shock value of the real sex appeal of this film, it very well dealt with various issues. I think Mitchell is such a daring and alternative director. Well, I didn't think that it was neccessary to have all these real sex, especially there is strong story and purpose emotionally and spiritually. It could have well been simulated sex. When I watched the credits, there is at least 30 "Sextras". I wonder how the crew handle working on those orgy scenes.
  
  
• The Courage of John Cameron Mitchell
  By A328S9RN3U5M68 on 2007-03-17
  Finally there is a film that rises to the intelligent choices of European cinema! In a giant leap forward John Cameron Mitchell has broken the taboo of frankly cinematically captured sexuality that has so long embarrassed American filmmakers. What he has created in this important experimental film SHORTBUS is not only a fascinating probe into the complexities of contemporary sexuality but also a group of relationship stories that stand on terra firma and are not merely a matrix for the frank sexuality from which they are derived.
  
  John Cameron Mitchell visits the relationships of several couples: a Canadian Chinese couples therapist/sex therapist (Sook-Yin Lee) who describes herself as "pre-orgasmic - she has never had an orgasm - married to a stay at home man (Raphael Barker): a young gay couple Jamie (PJ DeBoy) and James (Paul Dawson) who are considering opening up their monogamous relationship; a Dominatrix (Lindsay Beamish) and her long time male client among others. The location is New York City and in this melting pot is a club called 'Shortbus' where all manner of people visit to observe and participate in orgiastic activities, all with the goal of improving their libidinous experiences and heightening their pleasure zones And it is in this club that each of the couples meet and interface and change and grow.
  
  The film shows just about every form of sexual activity, none of it hidden from the camera at all. Mitchell has the courage and skill to draw from a cast of unknowns some particularly strong characters and he is able to show full frontal tumescent men and uninhibited women like no other American filmmaker has dared. The rewarding aspect is that Mitchell has finally succeeded in making a quality film for the open minded intelligent public who will not shy away in puritanical fright. Mitchell's first film was 'Hedwig and the Angry Inch' which has become a cult favorite. With SHORTBUS he steps further into the arena of successful American experimental cinema with a courageous and wholly enjoyable little work of art. He is a standard bearer and hopefully will open the gates for other directors to bury the fear of filming the sexual being - especially the ages long phobia of male frontal nudity! Grady Harp, March 07
  
  
  
  
• Boring
  By A3GR0U0WHMGMJE on 2007-05-13
  This movie was actually very boring. The actors suck, the plot was thin and the character development wasn't up to par with the pathetic sob scenes. It's not funny either. And it's certainly not a realistic portrayal of sex in any sense of the word... there's a relatively hidden tiny minority that engage in this type of lifestyle. Watching this movie was like going to the zoo, but it wasn't enlightening in the least. Beware those who would rate it highly, they often are afraid to have any other opinion when a "controversial" movie like this comes along.
  
  
• A nice idea, but really not worth your time
  By A1MC6E2F5QISJR on 2007-05-19
  I love the idea of a film that depicts sexuality as it exists, rather than in the exploitative manner of pornagraphy which reflects only (mostly unrealizable) fantasy. But this film takes that seemingly simple idea nowhere. In the end, it is just a big bore. The plot (if there is one) mostly centers around a woman's quest to have an orgasm, but one gets the feeling that it just so happened that that was the best footage that the director shot, so he used it the most in the final edit. The film has a workshop production feel -- like the director just gave the actors some ideas of themes and then yelled "action", figuring he'd use whatever worked, rather than producing a coherently written film containing a beginning, middle and end. Unfortunately, I think the director only gets one shot at this concept, so we'll not see if he could get it right the next time.
  
  
• Rave reviews!
  By A31KXGFXETFWE7 on 2007-05-25
  I saw Shortbus at the theater when released and had to buy the DVD. It is a singular film in that it has successfully (like no other film) married graphic sexual content with an interesting plot. If you have not yet seen the film be warned - it opens with some of the most startling images you will likely ever see in a widely distributed film - you will chuckle, and you may squirm and blush. You may do some of the things depicted, or maybe only wish you did; some may be a bit repulsed by some of the content. But one thing is for certain - the film will leave some impression on you.
  
  

• 9 songs - Unrated Full Uncut Version
• Lie With Me
• Another Gay Movie
• The Dreamers (Original Uncut NC-17 Version)
• Romance