Why is it hard to watch?

Rating: 1/10 (2 December 2015)

I find it difficult to believe that viewers find CWO "great" - from a cinematic point of view, it is pure trash. Cheap lighting, lousy rear projection, simple camera moves (mostly zooms), use of classical music that just bleeds from one scene to the next.
Before I go on, I saw this in first run in Chicago in 1971. I loved 2001 and Dr S. wanted more of the brilliance that those films offered. My reaction then is just as it was in my recent reviewing: He was making a cheap film that would bring in giant box office revenues. He seemed to be obsessed with titillating himself as well as the viewer with exposing naked breasts at every opportunity. Using step-printing or under winding to show the bed hopping antics in the orgy scene was childish. Even the "moral" of the film is too simplistic to rate honor.
As much as I was disappointed in Kubrick, I am saddened that reviewers didn't find some of the same faults with CWO that I have.
Other than shocking us and providing a view of perverse society of the opulence of the rich, the mindlessness of government, and the demented individuals who create horror in the name of entertainment, I find CWO to be painful to watch because of it's lack of cinema skill as much as it's poor statements on the problems of humanity.