Diary of a Sex Addict (2001)

Soft Porn crap

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. October 3, 2004

I disagree with both review sides

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 ... September 12, 2003

Superb study of disturbing subject

This is a superb view of what it's like to be inside the intimate circle of someone afflicted with OCD, obsessive compulsive disorder.

I personally found the use of video to be a stroke of brilliance by the director. You are 'there', experiencing with Sammy Horn (the main character) his compulsion as it progressively takes center stage in his life. The editing again was masterful as it attempts to give the viewer the effect of 'thought flashes' that the mind of someone with OCD experiences.

This is a well written, directed and acted film. The subject matter is disturbing, even more so in the manner that it is presented, but it is a skillful and masterful piece of work. Do not confuse the strong feelings elicited by the subject matter for those you would have with a poor film.

I would recommend this to anyone who deals with someone afflicted with anytype of OCD. August 6, 2003

Among top 2 WORST movies I've ever seen

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. For the 10 bucks I had to pay for the tape that's the 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 review, just pick any other DVD, *ANY* other, it won't be this bad believe me. May 7, 2002

Pretty damn awful....

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. February 25, 2002

More reviews at Amazon.com ...