Why is there support for CWO?

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.

There was more- The set dressing was cheap, the costuming was not original, much of the "direction" was flat and boring. The violence was timid (without reason other than as entertaining to the thugs)rather than graphic. I still cannot find why there is SO MUCH support for CWO and so little thoughtful criticism.

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.