Shortbus (2006)

Featured Audience Ratings

• Jennifer X

  
  Okay, honestly, I feel like the sex scenes were put there just to be titillating. Not effective.

• Daniel P

  
  I nearly turned it off in the first 20 minutes. Shocking, graphic sex. But when the main character (a sex therapist who can't achieve orgasm, played by Sook-Yin Lee) turns up at Shortbus - a sex club named after the little school buses, filled with "the challenged and the… More
  I nearly turned it off in the first 20 minutes. Shocking, graphic sex. But when the main character (a sex therapist who can't achieve orgasm, played by Sook-Yin Lee) turns up at Shortbus - a sex club named after the little school buses, filled with "the challenged and the gifted," says the host - the content makes sense, and the almost-story begins to take shape as she and the other characters look for that perfect chemistry, however weird that may be. Mainly, I think this is a film about facing your biggest sexual difficulties straight-on, and by the end, it pulled me in, and the content didn't shock me anymore. A tough watch, borderline pornographic in the beginning, but a film with a big heart that I wound up understanding... more or less. There are some story holes. Decent, though.

• Steven C

  
  If you go into "Shortbus" with only hearing about the graphic sex, you will be surprised to find that it's actually incredibly funny and enlightening. "Shortbus" is not for everyone, obviously, just the narrative alone could turn viewers off, let alone the… More
  If you go into "Shortbus" with only hearing about the graphic sex, you will be surprised to find that it's actually incredibly funny and enlightening. "Shortbus" is not for everyone, obviously, just the narrative alone could turn viewers off, let alone the nudity and real sexual contact. But, if exploring characters through their sexuality is up your ally, then this will be an extremely satisfying experience. The sex, while explicit, drives the story; there is always a reason for what you are seeing. You need to look into the sex and not at it. The performances are real and funny (the actors, for the most part, all wrote their own roles) and John Cameron Mitchell directs the proceedings with vigor, delight and plenty of energy. While "Shortbus" can get dark, it works well as a comedy, a drama and a great commentary on the sexual state of America in the 00s. "Shortbus" is a unique film to be sure, and an extremely brave one.

• Lady D

  
  Very controversial in content and a real mix of opinions on this film, first of course is does this count as pornography? Well it certainly is explicit and the Actors did have sex in this movie, so is it porn, or art imitating life? Either way if you're not particularly open… More
  Very controversial in content and a real mix of opinions on this film, first of course is does this count as pornography? Well it certainly is explicit and the Actors did have sex in this movie, so is it porn, or art imitating life? Either way if you're not particularly open minded, this won't be a film for you. It starts from the very first frame as a graphic and shockable open scene, but what I did find, was the further you get through the film, the more you ignore the sexual stuff and start to see this is not quite as one-dimensional as it may appear. You start seeing the non-sexual needs of each person and the individual relationships. . Ill leave the rest for you to judge!

• Tim S

  
  Porn in disguise. Pssh.

• William D

  
  "Shortbus" is a unique but only moderately interesting film that explores 21st-century urban sexuality. It chronicles the joys and struggles of a handful of Brooklynites as they seek romantic and sexual fulfillment. One of the techniques the characters use is to attend… More
  "Shortbus" is a unique but only moderately interesting film that explores 21st-century urban sexuality. It chronicles the joys and struggles of a handful of Brooklynites as they seek romantic and sexual fulfillment. One of the techniques the characters use is to attend gatherings that are essentially orgies. What's unusual is that writer/director John Cameron Mitchell (the creative mind behind 'Hedwig and the Angry Inch') has the actors actually take part in the orgies, complete with penetration. But "Shortbus" is not a form of pornography. There are no close-ups of penetration or anything like that. Mitchell is most interested in exploring what goes on in someone's head during sex. I suppose he wanted the actors to have real sex in order to push them and the audience more deeply into the lived experience of eroticism. As an example, one male character has never been penetrated by another man. When it does finally happen, Mitchell has the actor really get penetrated. But the camera does not spend much time on his loins; it lingers on his face to capture the emotion he is experiencing. What we see on his face is not sexual arousal but personal transformation. Unfortunately, this transformation is not that deep or complex. Ultimately the film is superficial, and this is its downfall. There's an air of sexual liberation that is quite nice, but it's nothing we haven't seen before. "Shortbus" experiments with form, but its content is rather hackneyed and thin.

• Anthony L

  
  There are some nice story lines in this film, I did enjoy it but it was not as good as the brilliant Hedwig! It?s very naughty! Looking forward to seeing more from john Cameron Mitchell, he is a fantastic director!

• Lorenzo v

  
  <i>"Voyeurism is Participation"</i> A group of New Yorkers get caught up in their romantic-sexual milieu converge at an underground salon infamous for its blend of art, music, politics, and carnality. <center><font size=+2 face="Century… More
  <i>"Voyeurism is Participation"</i> A group of New Yorkers get caught up in their romantic-sexual milieu converge at an underground salon infamous for its blend of art, music, politics, and carnality. <center><font size=+2 face="Century Schoolbook"><b><u>REVIEW</u></b></font></center> A good movie that explores all ranges of human sexuality and makes you think. It's explicit yet isn't pornographic. The movie is not intended for the faint of heart to watch. But with an open mind, you'll learn something from watching this movie. The acting is the only weakness in this movie (and a few strange psychedelic scenes in the end), which explains the score I give the film. But, I applaud James Cameron Mitchell for directing a movie that so candidly and honestly explore all the relationship issues that all human beings have, and not just limit it to a category of people. While many may dismiss this movie as a poor excuse to shock people with sex, people who delve deeper will find that the director has a deep understanding of what a majority of people on this planet go through in their every day love life. Check it out, withhold your judgment, and stay open to ideas. I think it will teach you something.

• jay n

  
  Trashy, arty vulgar junk.

• E.J. B

  
  The film is essentially not about sex, but about people who find that sex is the only way they can communicate with one another. Unfortunately, the film follows too many characters and gets extremely tedious in its last act.

• paul s

  
  assembling an odd bunch of charactors, wrapped around the two central tales of a woman searching for an orgasm and a gay couple who, after 5 years together, are facing a crises of sorts, and you get a very original film. I felt that all the gratuetious sex got in the way (although on… More
  assembling an odd bunch of charactors, wrapped around the two central tales of a woman searching for an orgasm and a gay couple who, after 5 years together, are facing a crises of sorts, and you get a very original film. I felt that all the gratuetious sex got in the way (although on a deeper level, I sense the neccessity of it). There are some very deep charactors with small parts here - from the ageing "mayor", to the veuyouristic neighbor living vicariously through the two gays, to the drag queen founder of "shortbus" (named after the smaller busses that pick up the gifted and the challenged). Yet for those rich charactorizations, somehow the more central dominatrix charactor came off oddly flat and not believable. The believability was much more pronounced with Jamie, who wanted nothing more than the love and happiness of his moody companion (also Jamie, but in a foreboding sequence, tells a couples therapist that he wants to be called James). A very poignant scene towards the end where Jamie sees James across the way, backlit in the window of the voeyuers apartment, highlights the directors ability to say much without dialogue. The use of the 3-D drawings of NYC were a nich touch as well.

• Gordon A

  
  I was skeptical about this as narcissistic NY freaks having explicit sex and talking about it endlessly is a hard sell but as with Hedgwick, the emotional honesty and accepting atmosphere won me over. Enchanting model/graphic of NY was a bonus.

• Ross C

  
  The latest movie in the new wave of pseudo-porn flicks that attempt to attract viewers with shock tactics by breaking boundaries of taste. Personally I found it be to a dull story about uninteresting characters and their petty problems.

• Christopher M

  
  I'm kind of on the fence about this one. There were parts of it I didn't like - parts that reminded me of bad encroaching on soft-core porn movies that come on Showcase, and there were parts of it that were excellent. Pretty much everything about the movie was hit or miss… More
  I'm kind of on the fence about this one. There were parts of it I didn't like - parts that reminded me of bad encroaching on soft-core porn movies that come on Showcase, and there were parts of it that were excellent. Pretty much everything about the movie was hit or miss for me, including the acting, the writing, the directing. Don't get me wrong, there were some beautiful moments. The ending sequence is wonderful, and how New York was a little paper cut out city instead of actual shows of the city was really cool. I don't know. I liked it, but I didn't love it. Very hard to describe, maybe after seeing it again I can give a better review.

• Rico Z

  
  When I saw this movie, I knew that it had to do with people in New York exploring their sex lives. I knew that the movie was somewhat graphic in its depiction of said sex lives-- but what I saw in Shortbus was so much more than that. This movie is one of the best films of last year,… More
  When I saw this movie, I knew that it had to do with people in New York exploring their sex lives. I knew that the movie was somewhat graphic in its depiction of said sex lives-- but what I saw in Shortbus was so much more than that. This movie is one of the best films of last year, despite its touchy subject matter and its graphic display of concepts and ideas by a great director (John Cameron Mitchell). At first glance, this film may seem to be a porno disguised as a legitimate film. But that's the point it's making. What is the difference between this and something subversive? Who designates what is subversive and what is acceptable. More importantly, this film explores so much more that's brewing beneath the surface of a sexually graphic exterior. Why do people act-out through sex? Sex elicits attention. Giving something attention means giving it power. Therefore, sex equals power. But how is this power used? Can it be misused? To abuse a partner emotionally? To neglect the needs your body is asking you to fulfill? To satisfy yourself in more than sexual ways? To make a human connection for once in your life? These are all themes that this film explores and once you've gotten over the novelty of the excessive nudity and non-simulated sex, you get to the heart of a truly touching story about people trying to get by and survive in an unforgiving city-- an unforgiving world.

• Dean M

  
  I like the scenes of straight couples in their sexual activity only, but not the gay scenes that makes me sick. Director John Cameron Mitchell makes a really strong adult film in every scenes.

• Nate Z

  
  [center][img]http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/7753/20060911shortbusnd2.jpg[/img] [/center] [font=Arial][color=DarkRed] Shortbus ? How do we define pornography? John Cameron Mitchell (creator of Hedwig and the Angry Inch) wrote and directed an examination on human… More
  [center][img]http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/7753/20060911shortbusnd2.jpg[/img] [/center] [font=Arial][color=DarkRed] Shortbus ? How do we define pornography? John Cameron Mitchell (creator of Hedwig and the Angry Inch) wrote and directed an examination on human relationships that also employs hardcore sex. Yes, the actors are really having sex and we really see, among other things, a man fellate himself to climax. There?s hetero sex, homo sex, masturbation, and, in small flashes, a whole sweaty orgy of people of all shapes, sizes, colors, and tastes. This movie celebrates the sheer possibilities and enjoyment of sex. Mitchell isn?t the first serious filmmaker to show people really doing it, and the movie shows sex in a realistic fashion that is rarely seen, with all the humor, playfulness, and stumbles that can arise. It?s refreshing and a great window into the depths of human interaction. That?s the deal: everyone in this film is reaching out to feel something. The script mostly follows the pursuit of a sex therapist who has never had an orgasm. The sex will get the headlines, but it?s the quiet reflections on human connection that really sneaks up on you and can hit hard. The movie doesn?t cover every facet with ease, like a stalker-esque character, and some of the acting is a bit amateurish; however, it?s a daring film that has a disarming sweetness to it and an open hearted message that's rather romantic after all. And no, it?s not porn. Nate?s Grade: B Little Children ? Director Todd Field ([i]In the Bedroom[/i]) and author Tom Perotta ([i]Election[/i]) have created the most incisive, mordant, and entertaining peek into suburban life since 1999?s [i]American Beauty[/i]. You really feel the carnal yearning that Kate Winslet and Patrick Wilson have as they inch their way to an affair. I?ve never felt the raw appeal of an affair perhaps like this before. Even more amazing, the film explores an entire neighborhood of characters and breathes life into them. [i]Little Children[/i] feels like a great novel, with a scalpel-sharp narrator offering glimpses into the inner workings of these people. You get a great sense of worth in the film and it?s easy to fall under its spell. [i]Little Children[/i] is a wonderful movie that looks at the complexities of people without judgment but with plenty of sly humor. It?s a fine work of satire and sensuality, and Winslet is becoming so good at delivering powerful performances that she?s being taken for granted as perhaps the best actress of her generation. Nate?s Grade: A This Film Is Not Yet Rated ? Filmmaker Kirby Dick is a ballsy man. First, he crafts a rousing journalistic expose on the unimpartial and arcane practices of the Motion Picture Association of America ratings board. Then, and this is genius, he submits his own muckraking documentary to that same board for a rating. Dick?s potent film is ambitious and tries to do too much, touching every topic related to the MPAA it can think of; it practically steamrolls over the ideas of piracy and the fact that a national ratings board eliminates the all-too-likelihood of arbitrary local ratings systems. But Dick squares the MPAA in his sights and his aim is deadly. This is an organization that says it is voluntary and has no editorial control over how movies are made. But how voluntary is it when the NC-17 rating is treated as a commercial kiss of death, where newspapers won?t run ads, video stores won?t carry the film, and advertising is strictly limited? Dick makes brilliant note of the different hypocrisies of the ratings systems. Sex is graded far more harshly than wanton violence, and what?s even worse is homosexual sex. Dick juxtaposes film clips side-by-side, one with heterosexual sex where the film received an R-rating, and the other with homosexual sex where the film received an NC-17 rating. The scenes are nearly identical except for the gender of the people involved. Also, sexual thrusting also seems to get the MPAA?s goat. An animated sequence detailing what is and isn?t allowed in a film per rating is hilarious (you did know you got one ?fuck? for a PG-13 as long as it is not in reference to sex, right?). There?s a lot of filmmakers in here to share their MPAA horror stories of what was and wasn?t accountable for taste, and some of it is baffling; Hilary Swank wiping her mouth after going down, off camera, on a girl is the difference between R and NC-17. The MPAA also has a disturbing habbit of grading harshly when it comes to films that show women receiving pleasure through sex. The MPAA is also the only ratings board where its members are kept in secret in an effort, they say, to thwart coercion. Dick hires a private eye, who happens to be a lesbian no less, and together they hunt down the raters and reveal to the public for the first time who these arbitrators of taste really are. MPAA mastermind Jack Valenti said the raters would be comprised of normal parents; well Dick?s film exposes that many on the board have adult children, and some don?t have any kids at all. Plus there are two members of the clergy on this board in an ?advisory? function. The film isn?t mean-spirited but is very angry, but it?s an anger that Dick makes sure you understand and relate to. The most astonishing aspect of this documentary is that the MPAA actually listened and is loosening certain rules, allowing filmmakers to cite precedence when arguing for or against their ruling (?Hey, you can stab a guy in an ear with a penis in [i]Scary Movie[/i] but we can?t have two women kiss??). This is a must-see for film fanatics and those curious how the industry ceded power to a small group of middle-aged homeowners. Nate?s Grade: B+[/color][/font]

• Walter M

  
  [font=Century Gothic]In "Shortbus", James(Paul Dawson) and Jamie(PJ DeBoy) have been together for five years and are seeking to open up their relationship. To that end, they have started couples counseling but their first session turns heated. They then learn their… More
  [font=Century Gothic]In "Shortbus", James(Paul Dawson) and Jamie(PJ DeBoy) have been together for five years and are seeking to open up their relationship. To that end, they have started couples counseling but their first session turns heated. They then learn their therapist, Sofia(Sook-Yin Lee), has never had an orgasm, not even when having sex with her husband, Rob(Raphael Barker). So, they introduce her to the erotic club Shortbus where they hook up with Ceth(Jay Brannan) and she meets Severin(Lindsay Beamish), a dominatrix, with needs of her own...[/font] [font=Century Gothic][/font] [font=Century Gothic]Written and directed by John Cameron Mitchell, "Shortbus" is a sexually graphic movie that is not so much about sex, as it is about honesty and being open in communicating your desires. Participation is always better than voyeurism, in both life and sex. The movie is surprisingly touching and funny(I'll never listen to the National Anthem in the same way again), while having respect for differences. But the acting is on the amateurish side and the movie faults by trying to force 9/11 into the conversation.[/font]

• Chihoe H

  
  On sexual discovery and liberty, "Shortbus" also further explores the intricacies and complexities of the human psyche and relationships. As long as you are going into it with an open mind, you will find that the explicit sex scenes are there to serve the narrative and are… More
  On sexual discovery and liberty, "Shortbus" also further explores the intricacies and complexities of the human psyche and relationships. As long as you are going into it with an open mind, you will find that the explicit sex scenes are there to serve the narrative and are by no means merely pornography on display. While there are some weak dialogue and questionable situations, the revelation of the genuine moments of passion, sorrow, and hilarity, amongst naked human forms, make "Shortbus" quite an exceptional, bold film.

• Joseph E

  
  Sometimes "Original" is only as "Orignal" as Sean Connery was to "Bond".

Read all 20 featured audience ratings