Diary of a Sex Addict (2001)

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

There are better movies of two hours length. I loved the actress'performance.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

My husband rented this from a video store thinking it was suspense. (He never reads the synopsis).Well, it would be funny if the thing was watchable. It simply isn't. The same thing over and over, no intrigue, and WHERE did they find the leading man?. The leading man, Michael Des Barres, is not even feasibly good-looking, especially for this role he is given. Also, sexual harassment at work is something, if you want to see, rent Michael Crichton's "Disclosure". At least Michael Douglas looked good in the early 90's. Alexandra Paul, who is usually watchable, plays an embarrassing scene here. There are also lighting effects cheaper than your at home web cam. Don't even waste time renting this. 0/10.

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.)

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')

First 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?