Diary of a Sex Addict (2001)

One of my all time favorites.

Good start, but then it gets ruined

Boring

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Actually, 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.)

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?

This 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

Sammy 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')