This is the sickest movie ive ever seen... eww. Crappy lgbt movie which shows how distressed and disturbed those people are. Deep inside they know it so they wanna kill themselves.

I give it points for being different, and I am all for art porn on principle. But in general, "Shortbus" is too weepy-sensitive to be hot. And John Cameron Mitchell's sexual ideology, as presented, is frankly puerile. A male character lacks affect until he is penetrated, and then all of a sudden, he can feel! A female character (who looks to be the world's worst couples counselor) can't experience an orgasm until she is jointly seduced by a Taylor Lautner-Taylor Swift type couple (we should all be so lucky), and then, well, the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air! The movie ends on that latter scene, actually, and I didn't like it any more than I did when "Adventureland" was structured around Jesse Eisenberg's getting laid, and when he does, mission accomplished, the movie's over. Yuk. It also makes me nervous to think that Lars von Trier's new "Nymphomaniac" is apparently based on this same plot trope, the search for the missing female orgasm. And at four hours or more length, no less. (Word has it that the director's cut of "Nymphomaniac" is five-and-a-half hours.)Large chunks of "Shortbus" do not work at all - a long screwball scene at mid-movie involving a vibrating egg is simply embarrassing. The characters are by and large not engaging (a word I prefer to "likable" in this context - you can be engaged, held, by someone who is not likable, such as Henry Hill in "Goodfellas"). Every now and then, a little bit of the movie clicks - there is a jacuzzi seduction with one guy edging closer to another that packs more erotic charge than all the explicit scenes put together. And I like Justin Bond's line, while surveying an orgy: "It's just like the Sixties, only with less hope." (Bond as the club proprietor, Lindsay Beamish as a dominatrix, and Peter Stickles as a cute stalker are the best performers here.)The film is clearly a fantasy, because it is hard to believe that the thoroughly polysexual Shortbus club could exist in the real world. When it comes to getting down to business, gay men don't like to be around women, lesbians don't like to be around men, straight men don't like to be around gay men, and there are never enough out bisexuals to go around. That leaves straight women, who I believe are indeed more ecumenically minded, but who also tend to avoid such establishments. Straight sex clubs seldom work because of gender ratio problems: they become either gay sex clubs, or brothels. That's the real world. Mitchell's concept of an establishment where everyone just gets along and gets it on is sweetly sentimental, though not without a certain wistful appeal.Beyond all that, I have always maintained that a sex club that is not also a bath-house is an icky proposition. People need to shower!

No pun intended.You can't deny there was some very good film making and acting in this, separate from the obvious cheap and garish porn elements.But the porn elements destroyed any sort of credibility.Now he must be a prude. A Republican. A religious sort. No.But I do think this rests all on opinion.I have no problem with homosexuality. They deserve equal rights. End of story. I do think that gay cinema does reflect an opinion of mine: Gays are persecuted for their sexuality. Thus, to fight back they are going to turn the sexuality up to 50. They are going to display sexuality in a form far beyond their comfort level or natural inclinations.Thus, I thought this was incredibly pretentious. Sure, I could have turned it off at any time. My argument is that I want to give a film a chance.The characters are incredibly damaged and dysfunctional and I think the actors are, too (based on watching the making of segment). They are fixated on living their life under the one umbrella of one element of life. Just like being black is not the beginning and end of life for people who happen to be black, then the sexuality of a person is not their entire life. To let it out of its box lets it run rampant.Again, this comes from my own opinion. I don't see what purpose it serves and distracts from the human elements of the story to shove pornography in the audiences faces. It's off-putting. (It's like saying strip clubs are therapeutic.)People are people and everyone is equal. But this depicted homosexuals and people addicted to their sexuality in a very bad light (and that's from a tree-huggin' liberal).

This film could have been a great film, but whoever wrote and directed this film was obviously forcing unnatural events in order to fit sex scenes in.For example, there's a scene where James is masturbating and comes in his own mouth on camera for his boyfriend. Having him just masturbate would have been understandable, put going to this extreme when it has nothing to do with the story just shows how horny this director was while making the film.There's another scene where Sofia is having sex with her boyfriend and this scene shows several different positions, and is way longer than necessary.And another scene where a dominatrix just beats on this dude for awhile, this part of that scene could have been ten seconds long and got the same point across, but yet again it drags on for an unnecessary amount of time.The writer and director of this movie used sex scenes and other sexual related acts to film time. And it shows his lack of self confidence with himself. This was a great story, and had several interesting characters.James had sever depression, Severin had emotional connection problems, Jamie had relationship issues that were out of his control, Sofia couldn't orgasm and it was ruining her sexual relationship with her boyfriend, Ceth felt alone and struggled to find a partner, Caleb has extreme mental problems and had an obsession with James and Jamie.These characters are all dynamic, and unique. This movie could have been amazing. But the people putting this story together on film ruined it, and the sex scenes, and nudity overshadows the amazing characters and takes time away that could've been spent focusing on the actual story.I'm not against sex scenes and nudity, but when you're movies entire reputation is dependent on that, it's bad.This movie could've been so much more, but they dropped the ball.