The Man Who Couldn't Get Enough

Skyscrapers have long been the butt of jokes about what they symbolise, and this film even mentions the Eiffel Tower while omitting to mention what the dome of St. Paul's Cathedral obviously resembles. Rather than simply thumbing through a stack of back issues of 'Mayfair' for inspiration our hero instead finds it necessary to actually mate with a succession of obliging females until the eventual plot 'twist' that provides him with his muse and the film with a conclusion.

Like so many actors in old British films, Derek Royle - who played Henry's boss Sir Bernard - already looked familiar to me; the penny finally dropping that he later played the ill-fated Mr Leeman, the guest found dead in bed in 'Fawlty Towers'.

CONFESSIONS OF A SEX MANIAC is an odd little British sex comedy that feels very low budget and very half hearted. The title is an odd one too; it makes it sound like some horrible giallo when in fact it's a relatively genteel movie, although the producers of the CONFESSIONS... series weren't pleased and forced a name change to THE MAN WHO COULDN'T GET ENOUGH. The film stars the one and only Roger Lloyd Pack (yes, Trigger from ONLY FOOLS AND HORSES) as an aspiring young architect who unsurprisingly enough spends most of his time bedding agreeable young women. When his baldie boss tasks him with designing a new, super expensive building to add to the London skyline, Pack takes inspiration from the female body and decides to design one in the shape of the perfect breast.

The rest of the film sees him hunting for such a thing, if it even exists. So it's an excuse to show a number of women topless, although of course there's plenty of romping between the sheets too as you end up seeing more of Pack than you ever really wanted to. He gives an odd, laconic, deadpan turn here, which I quite enjoyed given that I'm a big fan of the actor, although the rest of the unknown cast aren't up to much. Truth be told, there's no use proclaiming this film the 'worst ever' when there are so many bad entries in the genre to begin with (SHE'LL FOLLOW YOU ANYWHERE, anyone?). It comes as a relief that CONFESSIONS OF A SEX MANIAC is only slightly below average thanks to budgetary restraints. Oddly, it was directed by the one and only Alan Birkinshaw, of KILLER'S MOON and INVADERS OF THE LOST GOLD infamy; you can tell it's one of his as it has the same scuzzy atmosphere.

the single most pitiful, yawn-inducing waste of time it has been my misfortune to sit through,and i've sat thru some rubbish.

Even in the genre of British sex films, which are generally terrible this really has been scraped of the bottom of a very large barrel.

Its even worse than 'the amorous milkman' and 'the ups and down of a handyman'(and there BAD) and its as bad as 'emmanuelle in Soho' which is absolutely dire.

please watch this!!

i don't want anyone to suffer but would really love someone to find any redeeming qualities in this turd.

This film has just been revived on a local TV channel. I first saw it almost 30 years ago as the first part of a double bill, and I remember reluctantly enduring sitting through it because I wanted to see the second feature. Apart from this, the film was forgotten half an hour after leaving the cinema and has not returned to mind for over quarter of a century. Although the title of this TV feature sounded familiar, the film I remembered was so ghastly that I could not believe it was being allowed to escape from the studio again, but I taped it (it was an early morning feature) to check. Unfortunately it was the same film, and it was even worse than I remembered. I am therefore writing these warning comments in case there is any possibility of it being re-released in DVD format. It is a pity that, by its nature, your data base has to remain comprehensive, and works as bad as this cannot be allowed to slip into well deserved oblivion, but at least your readers deserve to be forewarned.

Perhaps on reflection these comments are unnecessarily cruel, the basic concept of an architect designing a building to look like a woman's breast could probably be exploited effectively on a film. I even know a minesite where two well shaped piles of slag have been named by the workers as the memorial to a well endowed young woman who used to work at the site. Given a new script, much better acting and direction, and above all better photography, a remake of this film might make a successful lightweight comedy for today's TV - however there would be little if anything left to remind the viewer of this terrible forerunner..

A prominent architect, Sir Bernard Storm (Derek Royle), has accepted a lecture tour in the USA when he receives an offer, from Australia, to design a new leisure center. Unable to do the work himself he leaves it in the hands of his slacker assistant Henry (Roger LLoyd-Pack), assisted by their efficient secretary Hilary (Vicki Hodge). Henry, having trouble coming up with an idea for the design, in a drunken stupor hits upon the idea of modeling the building on the shape of a woman's breast. Naturally he then has to search for the perfect female breast. This sets the stage for a series of scenes in which women show their beasts and, often, have sex with Henry, before he finally realizes that Hilary is "perfection".

The ladies are attractive and the movie will probably satisfy "soft porn" fans in that regard. Nudity is generally topless, with some full frontal shots. Unfortunately that is the only attraction of this movie. The principal problem is the performance of Roger Lloyd- Pack in the central role of Henry. He is one dimensional, his facial expression and vocal inflections are unchanged through out the film. Another "actor" of the genre (i.e. Robin Askwith) would at least grin from ear-to-ear when getting the goodies. Vicki Hodge is adequate in an undemanding role. Derek Royle delivers an energetic performance and lifts the film when on screen.

Technical credits are OK but the film coloring seems to be deteriorating. The jazzy music score is a bit repetitive but to be expected in a low budget production.

No one expects strong plots from a "soft porn" sex comedy, its all about how often and how quickly you can get the girls' "kit" off. The film works at this level. However there is very limited "comedy" in this sex comedy. As noted above the performances are limiting, plot thin and dialog simply lacks any spark.