Diario de un adicto al sexo

I 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 :)

"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-)

This 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.

Sammy 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")

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?