Customer Reviews

Diary of a Sex Addict [Region 2]

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(8)

 

 

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.

I bought this movie (tape format) basically because of the following 3 reasons:
1) Arquette and Kinsky were in it
2) 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.

What an embarrassment. My main question is why would two such accomplished actresses as Rosanna Arquette and Natassia Kinski fall so low to be in this film?? I gave it two stars...one for each actress...because that's about all this travesty deserves. And why is it shot on video?? Lack of budget? Or is this director trying to make some kind of point by using video?? The story could be good, but the main character is so totally repulsive and the actor is wrong for the part; what the audience needs to make this film SOME kind of a success is a protagonist to care about. The film needs a better actor to bring out the self-loathing within the character and at the same time to suggest qualities that would make him likeable so as to gather some kind of sympathy from the audience; as we have it, this actor makes a few facial grimaces to suggest his conflict, then off we go on another sexual escapade. He's totally one-dimensional. The direction is awkward and clumsy, and at some points Natassia Kinski looks downright embarrassed to be in this thing.

The only thing I found believeable was Grace's (Arquette) reaction at the film's end, although I severely doubt that ANY wife would be so ignorant all along about her husband's activities ("indiscretions" sure isn't the word in THIS case). See this film only if there's nothing else in the cinematic world to watch. Maybe one day we'll have a GOOD film on this topic as it's one that desperately needs to be explored, and it cries out for a better treatment than what we have (or lack) here.

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.

I disagree with this "accurate portrayal of sex addiction", because I do not see how this dude gets women like that, as he does. But I knew this was to be about addiction, not just some trashy soft-porn thang...

People gripe about the cheap-home-video method used to shoot this film/flick/whatever... Don't you get it? It looks that way on purpose! Like it's supposed to be a "Dateline" type of visual.

I agree, though, with the reviewer who couldn't believe the tough guy would p..y out when finding the cops were coming. But I liked how the character pretty much put the addict in the spot about "Can you teach me to get p..y like you?" (like he's onto what this guy is sneaking around doing, as if no one can tell.)

Also agree that the addict sure doesn't seem to work much...

I found this movie really gripping. Despite glaring differences, it caused me to honestly examine my own behaviors (though I don't "score" nearly quite him...). The movie could have been a lot more realistic IMO. But that's Hollywood for ya ...

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.

This is the worst FRAUD movie I have ever seen announcing a very big star like Nastassja Kinski and you can see her just for some minutes seated and almost only her face.

This movie is really abysmal. Apart from its promise that it would satisfy everyone's bestial desires, this movie fails on every level. It's filmed on digital video, thus the picture quality is questionable. The acting is the pits and the lead actor is just too old and craggy to be someone credible enough to be a casanova. Utter crap, even if the movie is put under the Hong Kong Category 3 genre.

If you ever had a desire to see Rosanna Arquette nude, then this movie is not the movie to buy. If you want to see beautiful women butt naked, then this movie is not the movie to buy. If you have a good sexual imagination and like to see creative erotic scenes, then this is not the movie to buy. If cinematography on the scale of Dr. Zhivago is your thing, then this is not the movie to buy. If great acting performances are your thing, then don't buy this movie.

Disgusting scenes of excess violence toward women and fake orgasms all around make this ridiculous farce seem like a soft-core version of every Porn King's first feature film. As a further insult, the viewer is subjected to tortuous "analysis" via a Rogerian psychiatrist. The featured "actor" looks like a janitor in a West Virginia high school; Rosanna Arquette and Alexandra Paul, who cannot be made to look ugly, nevertheless turn in performances that are spoofs of every bad acting class. These people must have desperately needed the money. If they acted for royalties, then their earnings will be about right. Zero.