People are voting emotionally.

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

The acting in this movie is really good.

At first glance this sexually explicit comedy drama might seem like a porn movie, but delve deeper and you discover a truly moving and emotional film with exceptional acting. It also teaches us to look for signs when someone might be in need of guidance and advise, or detect suicidal notions. Ultimately, I believe, the film is about finding your inner bliss. This was an unusual but wonderful movie experience.

I just feel like I wanna get sick, there is too much sex involved, it should honestly be a Pornography movie because it's not a normal movie! I like romantic movies gay or straight but, this is so lazy and badly done that they think they can get away with adding in too much sex scene's. It's ridiculous and disturbing!Also I couldn't understand why they added the buildings in cartoon versions and leave the Statue of Liberty as it always looks. The buildings are like so badly drawn that a small child can draw way better than that! Whoever created this movie, they are definitely away with the fairies! Then you see a scene where young people are doing BDSM and this was happening from the apartment that is beside Ground Zero. I found this so deeply offensive because I find that the characters just didn't care and performed sex anyway. I feel so bad for the 9/11 victims families because it felt like a smack in the face that they mentioned Ground Zero without feeling empathy. Who on earth thought it was a good idea to video that scene?! I would've just filmed that scene somewhere else, it wasn't right! I have to say, this is the worst film I've ever came across in my life, 9 years later! I regret looking at this in the first place!

Is anyone else sick of being told John Cameron Mitchell (JCM) is some kind of genius? He's just another sex obsessed freak. Spare me the wine and cheese colored reviews from people about this dopey film. You know some people will find value in anything if you let em think about it long enough.It's pornography. I know pornography when I see it. In college I had a job as an adult book store clerk for a year and I guarantee you I know porn. There's little on this subject I have not seen, heard or smelled live in the movie arcade. It's a free country. Porn has a place. But don't think I can be tricked into believing that a porn film is "art." Mitchell must have failed potty training because he is obsessed with this subject. I won't bore you with the list, but every conceivable sex act you can imagine (short of drawing blood) is committed to film here. Nothing--zero--is left to the audience's imagination. We are all reduced simply to watching. No involvement on our part required.The one thing you can say about pornography is that it's honest. It's not phony. It is just what it claims to be without pretense. Actors know what they are doing and why they are there--the money shot. Shortbus is the opposite. It's porn masquerading as "film." Bull hockey.To audition so called legitimate actors to portray these scenes in the name of artistic license is at best disrespectful to them. To direct actors trying to further a legitimate career in the act of producing their own bodily fluids and then eating them and, presumably the bodily fluids of others is almost unconscionable. (Bodily fluids-Yes, just what you think it is.) I'm only surprised one or more of these people didn't leave the set with an STD.I rate this "D" for "Disgusting." Not for the sex or nudity. Been there and done that. But I don't like a phony con job Mr. Mitchell. Grow up.

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).