"Diary of Sex Addict" is a pathetic attempt at a serious drama about sexual compulsiveness. Probably a movie marketing scam, this flick is a stylish shoot with a good cast and little else going for it. Bottom line, "Diary..." would have us believe that our sex addict character has the dumbest wife in the world, a stable of babes on the side who have nothing better to do than drop their panties for him at his whim, and no job in spite of being a restaurateur. At the best, this flick could have been good drama. At the worst, cheap softcore. "Diary..." isn't either and nowhere in between. This one's for the dumpster. (D-)
Add a Review
-
=G=10 August 2002
-
claudio_carvalho29 April 2018Sammy 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") -
claudio_carvalho11 April 2004Sammy Horn (Michael Des Barres) is the head chef and owner of a famous restaurant in California. He has a lovely wife, Grace Horn (Rosanna Arquette), 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 a double life, having sex with many different women. Dr. Jane Bordeaux (Nastassja Kinski) is trying to help him. OK, it is my fault: I read the summary of the other IMDB user comments, I saw the IMDB user rating, but I really did not believe that Rosanna Arquette and Nastassja Kinski could participate in such a bad movie. I decided to check it, and actually some comments are very complacent. The storyline, the screenplay and the dialogs are so silly and laughable that even in some X-rated movies we can find more intelligent stories. The photography is so amateurish and naive that in some parts it seems to be taken through a VHS camcorder. Michael Des Barres does not have sense of ridiculous: being an old man, bald, would be acceptable in an advertisement of Viagra or grandfather of the small boy. But as an attractive man who gets and has sex with any woman, it is scary. In Wood Allen's comedy, maybe he got a chance, but in a `serious' movie, it is funny. I am trying to figure out why or how Rosanna Arquette and Nastassja Kinski accepted to participate in such awful, amateurish and trash movie. Do they need money? Lack of chances in better movies due to their ages? Are they friends of the `director' (sorry for using this word) and decided to help and promote him? I do not know whether the intention of Rosanna Arquette was to show her breasts full of silicone, but it is unacceptable that such a great actress accepts such a script. The same is applicable to the gorgeous Nastassja Kinki. She is presented fat, without make-up, without any glamour. A total lack of respect with one of the most beautiful actress in the cinema history. A fact is really intriguing me: how can a reader, without any personal interest, promote this trash, giving higher ratings or writing favorable comments about this movie? Are they friends of the `director' (again, I am using this word...) or the cast? It sounds very strange to me that a normal IMDB reader can like such a film. My vote is two.
Title (Brazil): `Viciado Em Sexo' (`Addicted In Sex') -
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? -
FlickJunkie-29 February 2002This 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. -
el_nickster12 March 2002This 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. -
steelo_masterz8 December 2006let 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 -
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. -
geecu13 January 2002I wouldn't normally write a comment on-line, but this is the worst movie I've ever seen. Not only that it's filmed just like a soap series ("The young and the restless" is really filmed by professionals compared to this), but it also has awful cuts. It has no action. It is full of useless garbage.
Here's an example: a guy wants to kill the main character as he got fired because of him. So (after loads of crap) here they are: the guy puts a knife at his throat and says something like "You're dead now". Then the main character says: "If you kill me you're dead. I've told the police you're threatening me". So the (killer) guy goes like (just about to cry): "Oh no... the cops are following me!?!! Oh... my God".
Remember: this is just an example. I really cannot believe this movie actually exists. So: IF you want to see the WORST movie ever... go ahead, I recommend it :) -
fookoo28 September 2003A sexually obsessed chef leads a duplicitous life: one as a "happily" married man with a ten year oldish child, the other as a sex fiend. The bulk of the documentary-like film follows him for five consecutive days and is told in flashback with Nastassja Kinski as a clinical sex therapist, listening to his story and intelligently probing him. Nastassja's role is very restrictive and she is the only principal adult character who does not take off her clothes. If she had, I would have rated this movie a big fat "F." As it is, it rates an F+, implying that it is still a failure unless one likes to be bored. It is probably a lot more interesting to spend ninety minutes cleaning out the garage. "Diary of a Sex Addict" falls into the category of films that once one has seen it, one wishes that one hadn't.
-
Mulciber15 April 2003I write about film professionally, but have never felt the drive to comment here. However, I read the previous viewer comment and was inspired. I stumbled on the thing much as the other writer did, and was similarly aghast. Probably deserves some special sort of recognition, and I'm happy to do my part in spreading the word. I can almost imagine this film being some sort of "Springtime for Hitler" -type scheme. It's text book bad. A must-see.
-
The actor who portrayed Sammy is fantastic. I was married to a sex addict and the screen play was so on target. My husband would do the disappearing act, and then bring home flowers. But the most amazing part to me was Sammy's appearance througout the film. In the beginning he looked happy and handsome. By the end he looked sick and mean. That was exactly what happened to my ex husband. Wherever you got the material for this film it was excellent!!! Thank you.
-
dwpollar26 November 20011st watched 11/25/2001 - 6 out of 10(Dir-Joseph Brutsman): Realistically portrayed movie about sex addiction, it's pitfalls and it's treatment. This movie was shot like the scenes were taken from real life, which makes sense because the subject matter I believe was taken seriously and was not intended to be looked at as just a movie experience. This plus the main actors & actresses did a very good job displaying this disease from many different angles. Sometimes I think they went a little overboard when they portrayed the actual sex and the marketing for the movie(box photos and description of the movie on the back) led us to believe that this was just another r-rated sex exploitation film. RENTERS BEWARE !! (THIS MOVIE IS NOT WHAT THE ADVERTISEMENT MAKES IT OUT TO BE). It is(for the most part) a well-done exploration into the sex addict with some explanation as to how to treat the problem(this was not as complete as it could have been) as well as a good advertisement for Sex Addicts Anonymous(whether it was intended to be or not I don't know).
-
jrfranklin0121 September 2004This film depicts the terrible consequences of a man's addiction to sex. Much like the film Blow, with Johnny Depp, it shows how involvement with some of the ills of society can destroy a person, this time sex instead of drugs.
The film is to be complimented on its intentions to scare and yet educate individuals about sexual addiction. Despite it's made-for-TV look, the acting is performed well by Patricia Arquette and Michael Des Barres. The director does well in showing the addict as an everyday individual, much like those of other addictions. The double life that is portrayed is convincing. However, the film creates certain implausibilities that I just could not accept. *SPOILERS - In unfolding the progression of the main character's (Sammy's) addiction, the audience encounters several women who are either sex addicts themselves and/or are participants of rough sex or sadomasochism. This just does not seem to be very likely, especially in one scene where a prostitute asks to be slapped around. Also, we see an introductory scene where either a casual sex partner and/or a prostitute agrees to pay a $2,500 indecency and lewd conduct fine for Sammy. Again, doesn't seem likely. And what seems even more unlikely is the director's portrayal of Sammy as some sex stud, where not only does he pay for sex in ravishing prostitutes, but he also has a number of casual sex partners - one who works in his restaurant, one who is the bartender at a local strip club, one who is a lingerie model, and one that is actually his next door neighbor! Women appear attracted and drawn to him. I think this aspect of the film was a bit overblown and could have been left out altogether for more realism. Even so, Diary of a Sex Addict gives the right message that uncontrollable sexual desires can lead to dire consequences and ruin a person's life. 5/10 -
baconbit21 February 2003First 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?
-
mliste9 December 2001I was subjected to this atrocity by my wife, tried to turn it off after 10 minutes, 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 incredibly illogical. -
sumrrain12 December 2001This film was so amateurish I could hardly believe what I was seeing. It is shot on VIDEO! NOT film! I have not seen the likes of this since the early 70's, when late night networks showed movie of the week 'horror flicks' shot in......video. It looks like a bad soap opera, and that is paying it a compliment. Some of the actors give it their best shot. Michael Des Barres does okay with what he is given to do, which is to act like a sex addict out of control. I can't say that it is pleasant to watch.
Nastassja Kinski as the therapist sits in a chair for practically the entire film, with very little variation in camera angles. I can't fault her for someone else's poor blocking, but she is totally unbelievable in her role. Her little girl voice works against her here. And I consider myself a Nastassja Kinski fan. She is certainly ageless and exotic, but she's outside her range with this.
Alexandra Paul is pathetically overwrought. Every line she delivers is with three exclamation points. Someone must have directed her to scream at all costs. Why would Michael Des Barres want to have sex with such a raging shrew?
Finally, Rosanna Arquette as the sweet, maligned wife comes off okay, and probably the most believable of the bunch. But that is not saying much.
This has to be the worst film I have seen in years. -
jgusw22 April 2003Don't let the title trick you into watching this movie. I read the title, saw that it came on in the middle of the night, and figured it was one of those soft porn movies. This movie is bad. If you like soft porn movies, then I'm sorry to say this isn't one. There are a lot of sex but nothing shown and they only last for 5 seconds or so.
-
perfectisolation10 November 2002Ok, I wrote a scathing review b/c the movie is awful. As I was waiting another review (for Derrida) of mine to pop up, i decided to check out old reviews of this awful movie. Look at all the positive reviews. They ALL, I say ALL, come from contributors have have not rated any other movie other than this one. Crimminy! and wait till you to the "rosebud" [sic] review.
Checkout the other movies rosebud reviewed and had glowing recommendations for. Oh, shoot!, they happen to be for the only other movies by the two writers and director. Holy Window-Wipers Batman.
Joe, Tony, you suck as writers, and tony, you couldn't direct out of a bad script. No jobs for you!
ALWAYS CHECK POSITIVE REVIEWS FOR A LOW RATED MOVIE! -
insomniac_rod26 July 2009I really tried to like this movie. It deals with an important problem in any society: sex addiction.
In this story we learn that you can lose everything when you're addicted to sex. In this case, our main character and hero, for having non-stop sex with all kinds of women (crazy, kinky, neurotic) puts in jeopardy his marriage, job, and even his life.
The production values are terrible; mainly the acting. Oh, you won't enjoy ANY of the sex scenes, most of them are done in very poor taste and you might think you're watching a home made flick.
Second, the plot is just non sense. How could such a smart and beautiful wife stand all the nasty stuff from the husband? How could she believe him?! The threesome situation is priceless and will make you chuckle for a while.
Also, the scene with the black movie theater attendant is just pointless and will leave you thinking "wtf?".
You will find plenty of similar scenes.
Avoid this movie. Please, avoid it; it's not soft core, it's not a documentary, it's not a dramatic feature. It's a pretentious effort form a so called documentary director or whatever.
Only Mrs. Kinski's legs on display are worth the watch. I caught it on HBO and I'm glad I didn't spend my money on it. But those 90 minutes of my life won't come back. -
asherrod2 June 2007Actually, never saw this. just saw a review by Gonzalo Mendez asking a question I wanted to answer: Sin in suburbia - the whole idea is boring and banal. How can a movie or book make this material a timeless classic?.
While not suburbia per se (though arguably an equivalent from an earlier time), I would have to say Madame Bovary comes pretty close to his description and seems to have quite a following.
I know I am not supposed to reply to other comments, and I am supposed to stick to the movie at hand, but that question just screamed for an answer. (Well, no point in explaining. If this violates the rules too badly it will get deleted; if it doesn't, then I suppose no need to explain.) -
Boba_Fett11382 January 2008This movie could had been an interesting character study and could had given some insight on its subject but real problem with this movie is that 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 sex addict and the problems this is creating for his every day normal life and family. Why would you want to watch this? It's all so totally pointless 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- and sympathize for him. He just seems like a dirty old playboy, who is an a constant hunt for woman and sex. He has all kinds of sexual intercourse's about 3 times a day with different woman and not just only with prostitutes.
It also doesn't have a bad visual style, though it all feels a bit forced. But nevertheless it's all better looking than most other direct-to-video productions. Who knows, if the film-makers had been given better material to work with, the movie would had deserved a better faith.
The story really gets ridicules at times. There are really some pointless plot-lines that are often more laughable than they were obviously supposed to be. I'm talking about for instance the whole Ordell plot-line. Things get worse once they movie starts heading toward the ending. Also the whole way the story is being told, cutting back and forth between the events that happened and the main character's sessions with his psychiatrist feels a bit cheap and simple.
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 random straight-to-video flick, with similar concepts.
Still seems weird and quite amazing that they managed to cast Nastassja Kinski and Ed Begley Jr. in such a simple small insignificant production as this one is. Guess they were really desperate for work and money.
4/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/ -
key737347817 November 2001A sharp, incisive study of a dark topic. I found this film to be a thoughtful look into the strange world of sexual addiction. Well acted and packed with wonderful moments of truth, it was both shocking and quite honest 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 your time. Check it out.
-
boutros2-508-4931399 November 2012First of all, this is not deathless art nor is it a serious delving into the roots and dangers of sex addiction.
It's a campy Michael Des Barres vehicle which he carries beautifully as the charming and universally liked (and lusted after) but deeply flawed main character. For his performance - 7 stars.
The downsides of this movie were too much Nastasja Kinski and not enough Rosanna Arquette. Kinski's whispery phone sex voice starts to wear on the nerves fairly quickly as do the close ups of her meaningful looks in Des Barres direction. While the camera (or the camera-man) may love her, I would have preferred someone capable of a more nuanced performance.
Patricia Arquette, who is the only actor in this movie with any street cred, gets stuck with the role of the insipid, clueless housewife. Frankly, she's better than that and her character should have been given more depth and complexity thus giving the movie more depth and complexity.
As for the side story of the angry ticket taker, I have no idea what the point of that was. Perhaps the producer felt a stereotypical big, angry black man character was needed to spice up the movie. It wasn't.
If you're fearing / hoping for lots of graphic sex - there really isn't much. There are boobs but most of the sex scenes are more alluded to than graphic. There are a lot of voice overs of various women having all manner of explosive orgasms but that's about it. I wouldn't recommend watching this in front of, or within earshot, of the kiddies.
Bottom line, it's a fun little train wreck but won't likely leave you anymore edified on the topic of sex addiction than you were before you watched it. -
pippin4life16 June 2005This movie could have been a decent B-movie if 3/4 of the the movie wasn't so much focusing on the sex scenes. I mean, he's a sex addict, and I'm sure that there's a lot more that goes on with sex addicts outside of having sex on a constant basis. Michael Des Barres did a good job considering what all he had to do, which wasn't much. At one point or another, one would have to laugh at him, because his character was so pitiful. Nastassja Kinski was alright in her role as the concerned sex therapist, she could've of done more though and I'm not suggesting her having sex. The person that stood out the most to me in this movie was Rosanna Arquette in her convincing role as the loving and concerned wife. There's something about beautiful inside and out that strongly appeals to me. She played that role and as you watched the movie, you start to feel bad for her.
"Diary Of A Sex Addict" while not Oscar material or a modern classic to anyone's standards, is quite informative and does a fair job in showing you how one's personal demons can take over and ruin the very things in life you think highly of.