Diary of a Sex Addict

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

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.

This trashy B movie attempts to masquerade as a study of sexual addiction, but it is really a poor excuse for a sexploitation flick. The story revolves around Sammy Horn (subtle name) played by Michael Des Barres. Sammy is a restaurant owner with a clueless wife Grace (Rosanna Arquette) and a young child. He has a sexual addiction and must have meaningless sex every five minutes with any woman in his field of vision who will agree (and of course every woman on the planet finds him irresistible despite the fact that he looks old enough to be collecting Social Security).

The story is centered on a conversation with his therapist (Nastassja Kinski) where he is describing each of his sexual exploits via flashback. This is nothing more than a convenient launching point for a parade of serial sex acts, which consumes at least 75% of the screen time.

It is hard to know where to begin criticizing a film this bad. The production values are abysmal. The movie is shot on video with a look somewhere between a TV soap opera (at best) and an amateur porn flick shot in someone's garage. The direction by Joseph Brutsman is horrible with bad lighting, uninspired framing and poor actor direction. The script is vapid and the dialogue mindless and vulgar.

Women are generally portrayed as sex obsessed nymphomaniacs just waiting for an addict like Sammy to come along and rough them up while feeding their insatiable appetites with some impersonal copulation. As an example, Grace's sister comes over to indignantly inform Sammy that she knows he's been sleeping around and that she is going to tell his wife. His response to that is to throw her up against the wall and begin raping her. About three seconds into it she has an epiphany and is instantly converted to one of his sex disciples begging him to give her more. Just as they finish Grace walks in and sis says to her, `Oh, great to see you, gotta run to pick up Timmy' and mum's the word about Sammy's indiscretions. The bond of loyalty has been sealed with a good ravishment. No spoiler here because it is so typical of the obvious nature of the film that anyone who had seen the first fifteen minutes could have predicted it.

The sex depictions are all overdone, mechanical, and so poorly simulated that they are more comical than erotic. Most of them are done with both participants fully clothed. The acting is wretched. Michael Des Barres presents all the depth of a rain puddle. He really seems to get into the thrusting and profanity of the sex parts, but when it comes to actually acting with Arquette and Kinski, he is adrift. Rosanna Arquette is the closest thing to an actor in this film, giving a bearable performance and looking genuinely hurt when she finally discovers that her perfect husband is a lecherous animal. Nastassja Kinski is far too compassionate as the therapist, but at least we have some acting happening here. The rest of the cast is just a collection of elevated body doubles to whom they give thought provoking lines like `hit me harder, is that the best you can do?' and `Oh, God…YES'.

This movie is among the worst I have ever seen, a dubious distinction given the thousands of films I have viewed. I have given it the extremely rare dishonor of rating it 1/10. Not to be seen within three hours of any meal.

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")

First of all, let's just say that you CANNOT praise a movie simply because it is shot in HD. Generally, people do this because they know they need SOME hook. Because their movie is awful. And that is exactly what happens here. Garbage is garbage, no matter how clear it is on my TV. Secondly, HD or not, the film looks EXTREMELY amateurish. It has all the cliche 'look what I can do' shots. Perhaps directors that use these cliches should ask themselves 'what SHOULD I do?' instead?