Customer Reviews

Shortbus (Unrated Edition)

5 star:		(106)
4 star:		(31)
3 star:		(19)
2 star:		(14)
1 star:		(14)

 

 

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.

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!

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

I wish Amazon's rating system allowed half stars. I'd be tempted to give Shortbus 3 1/2 because I do appreciate Mitchell's attempt to treat sex matter-of-factly in an actual (and mostly engaging) movie. I also really liked his previous work, "Hedwig and the Angry Inch" and wanted to be able to throw my support behind an innovative independent artist. As it stands though, my disappointment in what came across as the larger message of *this* movie can't help but override my feelings of goodwill.

The thing that bugged me in this film (bugged me in a big way) was the divorcing of sexual fulfillment from connection with loved ones. Without giving away plot particulars, I found it actually kind of distressing that key characters wind up only being able to find real sexual gratification with strangers. In a movie that's supposed to be about finding acceptance, that seems like a curious message.

Is this really Mitchell's view of "utopia"? Of friendship? That it's, what, *preferable* to share your vulnerability with strangers while shutting out and not communicating with...the people who love you and care about you and actually deal with your crap on a day-to-day basis?

It's extra bothersome, because I thought this was an engaging film in other respects -- some uneven acting and writing aside. There was a lot of promise here, and I want there to be a place for films that treat sex as a legitimately important topic. I only wish the end result didn't feel like its conclusions were so self-centered and emotionally immature.

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.

I borrowed this film from a friend and had no idea what to expect. By the end of the first few minutes, I had placed the popcorn back on the end table and cleaned my hands so as to not butter up the rewind button on the remote. I was totally taken off guard, but in a pleasant way. I liked this movie for several different reasons.

First, Shortbus pushed the edge in terms of sexual content. The movie contains both straight and gay sex scenes, so there is something of interest for just about everyone. And many of the scenes occur in group setting, with all types of people of varying orientations taking part. I appreciated the inclusive nature of the film, which is one reason why I liked the movie so much. The scenes in the movie are not gratuitous, but are done in artistic tone.

The movie also touches on other issues besides sex, such as depression, suicide, the intricate nature and philosophy of romantic love, promiscuity, the machinations of the female anatomy/orgasm, the importance of being oneself despite whatever societal pressures might abound, friendship, compassion, and most of all, solidarity in a world of unknowns.

Shortbus is a very special place. It is a place where most people can go and feel welcomed. Whether you are straight or gay, thin or large, beautiful or not-so-beautiful, introvert or extrovert, young or old, liberal or conservative, and whatever other designations one could think of, it does not matter. Shortbus is a place to commune with others and share whatever it is you would like to share.

For me, Shortbus is a metaphor for what the world could be if we all would be a little less judgemental and a little more accepting, compassionate, and empathetic. It is a place we all could identify with if we would only let go of those things that bind us to our misconceptions and anachronisms.....