Diary of a Sex Addict

People never cease to amaze me. There are 29 quasi-unanimously negative comments about this movie. Many all-time masterpieces have only 3 to 5 comments posted on this site. If this is such a forgettable trashy TV movie (which it may be to many), why waste so much time criticizing mediocrity? Why bother after wasting almost 2 hours of your life? Why watch the movie at all? I saw it recently because it was the best option on late night Cable TV (HBO or Cinemax). When I read the synopsis which the channel superimposes on the TV image, I knew I was in for a B, no C or D movie. I was however surprised that Nastassja Kinski was in it. Sadly, she also had nothing better to do at the time. Well, at least she got paid for the experience.

And as for me, I got what I expected: a 5 over 10 rated movie.I dis-considered the title and exploitative subject matter in this rating. I mean, who of these 29 bored "users" expected CITIZEN KANE or the ultimate crusade film against sex addiction? A campy old Joan Collins-style flick is what came to mind, and that's what I got.

Actually, it's entertaining, and it does make a statement for the problem of sex addiction, although it is really so low grade, it's hard to take the film seriously, and not as a funny parody with tongue in cheek humor. But for a late night flick, it's not bad, it's easy to follow .... it's entertainment.

Actually, I think I may change my vote to a 7. Considering the genre, it's above average. Besides Joan Collins dramas, trashy classics like SHOWGIRLS came to mind as I was watching this. Sin in suburbia - the whole idea is boring and banal. How can a movie or book make this material a timeless classic? Wake up people! Are IMDb users really so terminally bored?

This movie (not a film -- clearly recorded on a cheap cam-corder) may be one of the greatest cinematic stink-bombs in history. Beware: the packaging advertises the flick as an erotic exploration of sex-addiction. The film is not an exploration of anything, and it is no more erotic than staring at one's own warts. The script is pointless and meandering, with all plot elements serving as segways between supposed sex scenes. However, even the sex scenes are lame lame lame. Except for the first, they are around three seconds long (then again, maybe my version was cut) and comically overwrought.

If you are looking for a decent film, you don't want this. If you are looking for a titillating sex-flick, you don't want this. Whatever your life's goals, desires, or perspectives, you do not want to watch this movie. How they got Rosanna Arquette, Natashia Kinski, and Ed Begly to act in this stink bomb is puzzling in the extreme.

I fell asleep on my couch at 7:35pm last night watching Larry Sanders (I usually DirecTivo it, but not last night). Woke up at 3am (invesment banker on the west coast), and was fascinated to see this on HBO2. I was shocked on how poor this 'movie' was. Seriously. shocked. So shocked that I had to write a commentary on iMDB. This is really really bad. the writing is boring, but the directing and editing are simply below those of a freshman at a film school.

Yes it is shot video. Mind you, that is shot on VIDEO, not DIGITAL VIDEO. It does look like a soap opera. The clips from skateboard videos have a more 'film' feel to them then this horror.

I wanted to describe the poor directing but i honestly cant remember anything. The shots and blocking are stupid. yes, i chose the word 'stupid'. not unconventional, not daring, not bold, not boring, just stupid. I know people reviewing this review will say "well give me an example". I cant. It was 3am. but trust me, I know you will watch it anyway, you will be drawn by the horrible reviews.

let me first say, i watched this movie around midnight, and usually there only is trash around this hour, but this movie broke the record

first of all the main character is an old non attractive creepy guy, yet he gets to f*ck all girls that come on his path for example he goes to a shop, talks to a girl and then you see them f*ck

secondly there are loads of sex scenes, and in many of them there is no nudity at all, i would not have been surprised if one of the characters in the movie would say: fast put your clothes on so we can f*ck!

thirdly this movie should show what a sexual addiction can do to a man or a family, this movie only shows soft bad acted erotica it makes me wonder why those actors agreed to play in such trash

Sammy Horn (Michael Des Barres) is the head chef and owner of the famous restaurant Sammy´s in California. He is a family man married with Grace Horn (Rosanna Arquette) with a beautiful five-year son. Sammy loves his family, but is sex addicted. Like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, he has a double life, having sex with many different women. The psychiatrist Dr. Jane Bordeaux (Nastassja Kinski) is trying to help him with therapy but Sammy does not change his behavior.

"Diary of a Sex Addicted" is a film with storyline, screenplay and dialogs silly and laughable. The cinematography is poor and amateurish and some scenes seem to be footages from VHS camcorder. Michael Des Barres acting as an attractive wolf, who has sex with any woman, sounds ridiculous. The gorgeous Nastassja Kinki is shown fat, without make-up and any glamour in the role of a psychiatrist and Rosanna Arquette as a naive wife. Why Rosanna Arquette and Nastassja Kinski have accepted to participate in such awful, amateurish and trash erotic thriller? Do they need money? Lack of chances in better movies due to their ages? Are they friends of the "director" and decided to help to promote his movie? My vote is two.

Title (Brazil): "Viciado Em Sexo" ("Sex Addicted")