Simply Perfect

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

First of all, this is not deathless art nor is it a serious delving into the roots and dangers of sex addiction.It's a campy Michael Des Barres vehicle which he carries beautifully as the charming and universally liked (and lusted after) but deeply flawed main character. For his performance - 7 stars.The downsides of this movie were too much Nastasja Kinski and not enough Rosanna Arquette. Kinski's whispery phone sex voice starts to wear on the nerves fairly quickly as do the close ups of her meaningful looks in Des Barres direction. While the camera (or the camera-man) may love her, I would have preferred someone capable of a more nuanced performance.Patricia Arquette, who is the only actor in this movie with any street cred, gets stuck with the role of the insipid, clueless housewife. Frankly, she's better than that and her character should have been given more depth and complexity thus giving the movie more depth and complexity.As for the side story of the angry ticket taker, I have no idea what the point of that was. Perhaps the producer felt a stereotypical big, angry black man character was needed to spice up the movie. It wasn't.If you're fearing / hoping for lots of graphic sex - there really isn't much. There are boobs but most of the sex scenes are more alluded to than graphic. There are a lot of voice overs of various women having all manner of explosive orgasms but that's about it. I wouldn't recommend watching this in front of, or within earshot, of the kiddies.Bottom line, it's a fun little train wreck but won't likely leave you anymore edified on the topic of sex addiction than you were before you watched it.

Diary of a Sex Addict was compelling, thought-provoking, and real. There was a certain rawness to the depictions of sexuality and I found myself oddly ensconced with the plot-line. I, myself, can attest to the hazards of sex addiction and am pleased to see a pop-culture response to this growing epidemic.However, my fascination with this film extends beyond my ability to relate to the protagonist. I was also impressed by the overall artistic effect of the film. I feel as though the director was able to capture a certain reality of the human essence and condition.I am sick of movies that insist on depicting sexuality in an all-American and wholesome sense. What America's youth needs to see is the taboo, the subversive and the downright bizarre. We need to prevent yet another generation of conformists and prudes. And I firmly believe that viewing this film is the first step in achieving our goal.

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?

I always watch this movie on late night cable should I come across it channel surfing. Having been involved in all sorts of addictive behavior, it reinforces for me the old saw- "But for the Grace of God, go I." I have never seen anyone portray addictive behavior better than the lead actor. It makes Keaton in "Clean and Sober" and Lemmon in "Days of Wine and Roses" seem tame. Watching this guy slowly "bottom" is enlightening. As a result, despite all of the movie's flaws, highlighted by other posters, I find this film compelling and absorbing. I give it a 9 out of 10.