david rob

(2013-05-24 05:15:00)

makes showgirl look brilliant

let me first say, i watched this movie around midnight, and usuallythere only is trash around this hour, but this movie broke the recordfirst 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 goesto a shop, talks to a girl and then you see them f*cksecondly there are loads of sex scenes, and in many of them there is nonudity at all, i would not have been surprised if one of the charactersin 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 manor a family, this movie only shows soft bad acted erotica it makes mewonder why those actors agreed to play in such trash

Boba_Fett1138

(2013-05-23 22:30:19)

Not THAT bad, just very pointless.

This movie could had been an interesting character study and could hadgiven some insight on its subject but real problem with this movie isthat it doesn't have any of this in it. It doesn't give any insight-,or solutions to the problem. It's just the portrayal of 'old' male sexaddict and the problems this is creating for his every day normal lifeand family. Why would you want to watch this? It's all so totallypointless and meaningless.It also really doesn't help that the main character is some wrinkly 50+year old male. You'll have a hard time identifying yourself- andsympathize for him. He just seems like a dirty old playboy, who is an aconstant hunt for woman and sex. He has all kinds of sexualintercourse's about 3 times a day with different woman and not justonly with prostitutes.It also doesn't have a bad visual style, though it all feels a bitforced. But nevertheless it's all better looking than most otherdirect-to-video productions. Who knows, if the film-makers had beengiven better material to work with, the movie would had deserved abetter faith.The story really gets ridicules at times. There are really somepointless plot-lines that are often more laughable than they wereobviously supposed to be. I'm talking about for instance the wholeOrdell plot-line. Things get worse once they movie starts headingtoward the ending. Also the whole way the story is being told, cuttingback and forth between the events that happened and the maincharacter's sessions with his psychiatrist feels a bit cheap andsimple.But as far as bad movies are concerned, this just isn't one of them.It's not really any better or worse than any other randomstraight-to-video flick, with similar concepts.Still seems weird and quite amazing that they managed to cast NastassjaKinski and Ed Begley Jr. in such a simple small insignificantproduction as this one is. Guess they were really desperate for workand money.4/10

insomniac_rod

(2013-05-23 16:20:44)

Mediocre documentary effort.

I really tried to like this movie. It deals with an important problemin any society: sex addiction.In this story we learn that you can lose everything when you'readdicted to sex. In this case, our main character and hero, for havingnon-stop sex with all kinds of women (crazy, kinky, neurotic) puts injeopardy his marriage, job, and even his life.The production values are terrible; mainly the acting. Oh, you won'tenjoy ANY of the sex scenes, most of them are done in very poor tasteand you might think you're watching a home made flick.Second, the plot is just non sense. How could such a smart andbeautiful wife stand all the nasty stuff from the husband? How couldshe believe him?! The threesome situation is priceless and will makeyou chuckle for a while.Also, the scene with the black movie theater attendant is justpointless and will leave you thinking "wtf?". Scenes like those you will find plenty. Avoid this movie. Please, avoid it; it's not soft core, it's not adocumental, it's not a dramatic feature. It's a pretentious effort forma so called documentary director or whatever.Only Mrs. Kinski's legs on display are worth the watch. I caught it onHBO and I'm glad I didn't spend my money on it. But those 90 minutes ofmy life won't come back.

Irfan-the-gr8

(2013-05-23 04:23:39)

Unrealistic

Spoilers ahead: Biggest anti-spoiler is that the moviesucks.If this was 1% real, i will never go to a restaurant again. Sex in thestorage room! no way. Other places where sex occurred were his own house,neighbor's house, lingerie store, bar, cheap motels, etcetc.I rented this movie for watching the lovely Nastassja but if i had read theuser comments at IMDB, i would have stayed away. Nastassja is the shrink whois talking to her patient about his past 5 days of sexual exploits and itseems at one point that something is about to happen in that room too,suggested by close up of Nastassja's lips ... but nothing.Non professional video/dialogue/editing/almost no background music/like a3pm soap opera. Best candidate for the worst ??movie?? of alltimes.

John Williams

(2013-05-21 18:38:16)

sumrrain, get a new tv

Just happened across this last night channel surfing. Saw that it wasshotin video, but it looked like high quality on my 19" bedroom tv, so I wentinto the living room, fired up the HDTV. It was shot on video. HighDefinition video, and it looked amazing.While it was, to a certain degree, a bit of a fable (as in, where sexaddiction leads), it definitely had some outstanding points. Michael DesBarres was both charming and disturbing as the addicted restauranter,SammyHorn (I'm sure the pun is intended). Nastassia Kinski, as his therapist,was stunning in her ability (primarily through dialogue) to expresssincerecompassion. Rosanna Arquette is outstanding as his charming, beautifulwife, and even more outstanding when she learns of hisinfidelities.All of the actors (especially the ones who took their clothes off) took abig chance doing this project; unlike film that's been transferred tohigh-definition, HD video shows every single little detail--and everylittleflaw. It also serves this particular subject matter well. Instead ofjustanother straight-to-video movie-with-a-message, the choice to go withhigh-definition video gives DOASA a more immediate feel, more of an "it'shappening now" mood. It's also a bit more voyeuristic and personal thanfilm. Lighting and production design with such a sensitive medium arecritical, and cinematographer Nathan Hope and PD Oliver French did agreatjob--particularly in the therapist's office and Sammy's restaurant.I think the choice to use HD makes this movie stand out. While storiesofaddiction are by no means new or original, an HD movie about thisparticularaddiction combined with such great performances makes DOASA a powerfulviewing experience.

samir e

(2013-05-21 12:57:59)

i like this movie

my name is rachel allen maggio i like fart. o yea just partial. RACHEL ALLEN MAGGIO . ok i like the movie it was kinda nice i liked and im 12 yers old DARRIER

(2013-05-21 06:57:29)

awsome

This review is from: Diary of a Sex Addict (DVD) this was a very relistic film about sex addition. I really believe the screenwriter and director should have recieve a Golden Globe nomimnaton this movie really went under the radar.

bball1dad

(2013-05-20 15:43:04)

Absorbing and Compelling

I always watch this movie on late night cable should I come across itchannel surfing. Having been involved in all sorts of addictive behavior,itreinforces for me the old saw- "But for the Grace of God, go I." I havenever seen anyone portray addictive behavior better than the lead actor.Itmakes Keaton in "Clean and Sober" and Lemmon in "Days of Wine and Roses"seem tame. Watching this guy slowly "bottom" is enlightening. As a result,despite all of the movie's flaws, highlighted by other posters, I findthisfilm compelling and absorbing. I give it a 9 out of 10.

(2013-05-20 20:16:03)

about the DVDfilm/movie Diary of a sex addict........

This review is from: Diary of a Sex Addict (DVD) This movie had been showing in Singapore theatre Golden Village for over a week already and the story is basically about a woman finding her new man (with sexual contnet) and later she finds that this is not what she wanted after the man did something to her in the movie. She later went into prostitution and to find out later that this method of life is almost the same after one Nigerian woman talk to her more about her business in thi line. She later quit her job to find back a new man that she feels confortable with in the first place. She also consider the advise gieb by old woman and her friend to enjoy her sex life as much as she can in this DVDfilm. The DVDfilm/movie contains numerous sexual contnet scenes and intimate scenes which certain adults might be interested in this genre of films.Diary of a Sex AddictReview by:Dr, MR FRanc MBBS (PhD) GPS Ang Poon Kahmottoyoshi04@yahoo.comdirector (inidicaion Ang Poon Kah) for film summer palacedirector (indication Ang Poon Kah) for film notes on a scandaldirector (indication Ang Poon Kah) for film Pschophathia Sexualisidea of music (inidcation Ang Poon Kah) for DMX album Year of the dogidea of music (indication Ang Poon Kah) for R Kelly - TP3 Reloadedmode 2 government people of SingaporeAssistant FED chief (Internationale)

sumrrain

(2013-05-20 05:15:58)

Astonishingly Pathetic

This film was so amateurish I could hardly believe what I was seeing. Itisshot on VIDEO! NOT film! I have not seen the likes of this since theearly70's, when late night networks showed movie of the week 'horror flicks'shotin......video. It looks like a bad soap opera, and that is paying it acompliment. Some of the actors give it their best shot. Michael DesBarresdoes okay with what he is given to do, which is to act like a sex addictoutof control. I can't say that it is pleasant to watch.Nastassja Kinski as the therapist sits in a chair for practically theentirefilm, with very little variation in camera angles. I can't fault her forsomeone else's poor blocking, but she is totally unbelievable in her role.Her little girl voice works against her here. And I consider myself aNastassja Kinski fan. She is certainly ageless and exotic, but she'soutside her range with this.Alexandra Paul is pathetically overwrought. Every line she delivers iswiththree exclamation points. Someone must have directed her to scream at allcosts. Why would Michael Des Barres want to have sex with such a ragingshrew?Finally, Rosanna Arquette as the sweet, maligned wife comes off okay, andprobably the most believable of the bunch. But that is not sayingmuch.This has to be the worst film I have seen in years.

(2013-05-18 14:11:44)

Among top 2 WORST movies I've ever seen

I bought this movie (tape format) basically because of the following 3 reasons:1) Arquette and Kinsky were in it2) Front artwork and title were kind of luring. 3) Bluckbuster had a discount for it on tape (9.99)Terrible waste of money and time. Mediocre video mode, from the very start makes it look like the cheapest soap opera. What is worse, bottom line absolutely everything in the movie really ends up reaching the level of the cheapest soap opera you might be able to think of. Arquette's explosion at the end is indeed the only 10 seconds worth watching as another reviewer said, there's really nothing else worth the time and money. Given the [...] bucks I had to pay for the tape, that makes those the 10 most expensive seconds of movie material I've paid for in my life. Don't waste your time/money unless you want to explore how BAD a movie can be. Don't even read more reviews, just pick any other DVD, *ANY* other. It won't be this bad, trust me.

Gonzalo Melendez

(2013-05-18 03:50:29)

With that title, how can you expect a masterpiece? Why watch at all?

People never cease to amaze me. There are 29 quasi-unanimously negativecomments about this movie. Many all-time masterpieces have only 3 to 5comments posted on this site. If this is such a forgettable trashy TVmovie (which it may be to many), why waste so much time criticizingmediocrity? Why bother after wasting almost 2 hours of your life? Whywatch the movie at all? I saw it recently because it was the bestoption on late night Cable TV (HBO or Cinemax). When I read thesynopsis which the channel superimposes on the TV image, I knew I wasin for a B, no C or D movie. I was however surprised that NastassjaKinski 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.Idis-considered the title and exploitative subject matter in thisrating. I mean, who of these 29 bored "users" expected CITIZEN KANE orthe ultimate crusade film against sex addiction? A campy old JoanCollins-style flick is what came to mind, and that's what I got.Actually, it's entertaining, and it does make a statement for theproblem of sex addiction, although it is really so low grade, it's hardto take the film seriously, and not as a funny parody with tongue incheek humor. But for a late night flick, it's not bad, it's easy tofollow .... 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 likeSHOWGIRLS came to mind as I was watching this. Sin in suburbia - thewhole idea is boring and banal. How can a movie or book make thismaterial a timeless classic? Wake up people! Are IMDb users really soterminally bored?

rosebush

(2013-05-17 22:13:28)

A pleasant surprise

I viewed this film half expecting to see some sort of simple story with alot of T & A. Boy, was I wrong. This film uncovers what I guess must be areal problem for millions of people. Artfully done and far delving intothethoughts and minds of sex addicts, this movie is a real eye-opener, athought-provoking film, beautifully done, well acted. All I can say is, Iwas very pleasantly surprised and I will be thinking about this film for along time to come.I highly recommend it.

(2013-05-17 17:44:37)

Again, There Should Be A 'Zero Stars' Rating

This is the most ridiculous and absurd piece of trash I have ever seen.I picked it up on the recommendation of the local film critic flyer, and, first off, let me explain that DIARY OF A SEX ADDICT is not a film in any sense of the word. It's an experiment shot on someone's camcorder and edited haphazardly probably on someone's home television system.How in the name of art the producers were able to lure credible acting talent (the likes of which include Rosanna Arquette and Nastassia Kinski) to participate in this lurid sexploitation (that, incidentally, show virtually no nudity) is beyond me.The story of a high-class restaurant chef who finds himself, in his bored marriage (???), addicted to sex with (literally ANY) other women is nothing more than a porn-king Peter Pan tale that has no discernible beginning, middle, nor end.The feature is rated R for extreme sexual situations, but, again, there is no sex to be seen or experienced in this film. The story tries to be about the addiction, with staccatoed flashback/inserts that add nothing to the tale, but ends up being little more than a waste of film.DO NOT, under any circumstances, rent this picture. I know that we, as people, sometimes enjoy the freakish habit of reading a bad review and figure, "I'll rent it for the laughs." There are no laughs here. There is only incomprehensible drivel that goes nowhere s-l-o-w-l-y.

complete_video

(2013-05-17 00:03:31)

Extremely poorly done

As many others have stated, this is a terrible movie, from every aspectof movie making. How they ever got some known name actors to take onthis project is amazing.Many people have complained that it was shot on 'cheap' video cameras.Yes, it was shot on video, but not 'cheap' video. What made it bad wasthe lighting, white balancing, shooting technique and editing.There were so many different shooting and editing techniques used thatit was a production mess. Harsh, inconsistent lighting, over use ofhand held shooting (ala Woody Allen), choppy editing (another Allentechnique), but poorly done, without real purpose.The lack of white balance in the restaurant kitchen scenes isembarrassing; very amateurish.The simulated sex scenes had no acting value at any level.How this video ever made it to print is beyond me. It is worth watchingif only to be amazed at how bad it is.

(2013-05-16 08:21:51)

a who done it let down

This review is from: Diary of a Sex Addict (DVD) If you want to see someone post some woman against a wall and grind like he's going out of his silly mind, you might like this one. I personally didn't. The sex is simulated and all the main character does is lie to his wife and 'poke' every woman he sees. He ends up with a close call, which makes you disgusted with him all together. I hate myself for buying this movie. As a matter of fact, there is no movie. It's stupid sex that isn't even real.

mliste

(2013-05-15 02:25:55)

The worst movie, ever?

I was subjected to this atrocity by my wife, tried to turn it off after 10minutes, but was forced through the whole thing. This must be, hands down,the most gruesome pretense of a movie ever...There were great script moments, such as:Sammy - "If she gets over here right away, she gets a bonus"Madam - "A boner?"Sammy - "No, a bonus"To summarize: Horrible script, terrible acting and incrediblyillogical.

Claudio Carvalho

(2013-05-14 15:05:00)

I Am Trying to Figure Out Why or How Rosanna Arquette and Nastassja Kinski Accepted to Participate in Such Awful, Amateurish and Trash Movie

Sammy Horn (Michael Des Barres) is the head chef and owner of a famousrestaurant in California. He has a lovely wife, Grace Horn (RosannaArquette), who is pregnant, and a beautiful son of about five years old.Sammy indeed loves his family, but like Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde, he has adouble life, having sex with many different women. Dr. Jane Bordeaux(Nastassja Kinski) is trying to help him. OK, it is my fault: I read thesummary of the other IMDB user comments, I saw the IMDB user rating, but Ireally did not believe that Rosanna Arquette and Nastassja Kinski couldparticipate in such a bad movie. I decided to check it, and actually somecomments are very complacent. The storyline, the screenplay and the dialogsare so silly and laughable that even in some X-rated movies we can find moreintelligent stories. The photography is so amateurish and naive that in someparts it seems to be taken through a VHS camcorder. Michael Des Barres doesnot have sense of ridiculous: being an old man, bald, would be acceptable inan advertisement of Viagra or grandfather of the small boy. But as anattractive man who gets and has sex with any woman, it is scary. In WoodAllen's comedy, maybe he got a chance, but in a `serious' movie, it isfunny. I am trying to figure out why or how Rosanna Arquette and NastassjaKinski accepted to participate in such awful, amateurish and trash movie. Dothey need money? Lack of chances in better movies due to their ages? Arethey friends of the `director' (sorry for using this word) and decided tohelp and promote him? I do not know whether the intention of RosannaArquette was to show her breasts full of silicone, but it is unacceptablethat such a great actress accepts such a script. The same is applicable tothe gorgeous Nastassja Kinki. She is presented fat, without make-up, withoutany glamour. A total lack of respect with one of the most beautiful actressin the cinema history. A fact is really intriguing me: how can a reader,without any personal interest, promote this trash, giving higher ratings orwriting favorable comments about this movie? Are they friends of the`director' (again, I am using this word...) or the cast? It sounds verystrange to me that a normal IMDB reader can like such a film. My vote istwo.Title (Brazil): `Viciado Em Sexo' (`Addicted In Sex')

(2013-05-14 02:54:29)

Sexual Addiction

I believe the good part of this movie is it shows the depavity of sexual addiction, not only in the man that portrays her husband, but the scandalous women too. It just goes to show the moral atrophy in our society. You would be suprised at how many married women with husbands like this I know that have either turned a blind subservient eye to their behavior, or will sit and gripe about it for years until they have breast cancer from the years of stress being married to such a societal termite...potential rapist/pedophile. I think this is a great wakeup call movie for anyone married to a rabid dog in heat that has broken off it's leash and is having litters of puppies everywhere or spewing thier diseases. A wicked spouse is like gangrene, you have to cut it off before it spreads. Before they molest/rape your daughter, niece, sister, mother, neighbor, coworker, etc. This movie helps educate people away from this low class behavior. I highly recommend it to women who think they are going to change a sexual deviant and/or criminal.

key7373478

(2013-05-13 10:43:46)

A sharp, incisive study of a dark topic.

A sharp, incisive study of a dark topic. I found this film to be athoughtful look into the strange world of sexual addiction. Well acted andpacked with wonderful moments of truth, it was both shocking and quitehonest at the same time. The film has a very real feel and pace to it.Without going into any of the story, I'll just say that it's worth yourtime. Check it out.