Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

A very feeble attempt at affirmatie action

It's complicated... I really like the directing, acting and writing but, there are issues with the way it's shot that I just can't deny. As much as I love the storytelling and the fantastic performance but, there are also certain scenes that didn't need to exist.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Pornography is such a huge business today it dominates the U.S. psyche like few others. On the other hand, one has to appreciate just how difficult it is for the average person today to view this subject in a truly objective fashion, when so many now enjoy pornography on a regular basis. This reflects the prevailing pro-porn mythology. This myth teaches that regular porn usage is harmless but this is in no way the whole story. This documentary, although not exhaustive, studies the effects of just 30 days of regular hardcore porn usage on 3 adults. Its findings mirror other more exhaustive scientific studies that show that pornography has real adverse effects on important issues like mental health, respect for marriage, respect for women as well as tolerance for sexual crimes like rape and pedophilia. This is a deep subject and one which should not be taken lightly. If you are able to put pro-porn bias aside, there is much to learn from this well-done documentary. One of the most shocking things is how many famous mainstream corporations are now discreetly in the hardcore porn business!

This movie has fundamental flaws including: 1) insignificant sample size, 2) imbalanced presentation, 3) presented as a scientific study but far from 100% true to the "scientific process". However, this film has some takeaways and is particularly relevant to married/monogamous couples.Pornography, much like many forms of technology, serves as alienation taking man further away from his/her natural state. Couples that don't communicate and/or are afraid of the unknown aren't going to be successful in the long run, whether or not one or both of them choose to watch pornography.I would offer that the most insightful attribute of this film is pointing out the omnipresence of denial. Anyone who thinks that pervasive denial is anything new probably won't learn anything from this one, at any rate.

If you accept the idea that a documentary should document, without bias or agenda, this film was a flop. It is very deeply flawed due to its methodology.I was pleasantly surprised by the four reviews here that preceded mine. None of them fell for the "arguments" of this film. I agree with almost all of what the other reviewers wrote. One said that viewers should watch the film with their thinking caps on. Failure to watch with a critical eye might lead someone to fall for some of the faulty logic in Adult Entertainment which, as another wrote, is similar to Reefer Madness.At the beginning, it seemed like the filmmaker had intentions of presenting a balanced and logical view. But quickly, the film veers into logical mistakes, poor methodology and bias.The "experts" are well chosen. But the film does not challenge their glaring inconsistencies and hyperbolic rhetoric. The landscape of these experts' analyses is on shaky ground, with terms being used loosely and opinions being presented as scientifically supported "facts". Terms like "obsession" and "addiction" are mixed together and their meanings are muddled by the words "crisis" and "compulsion". Causes and correlations are confused.The filmmaker wonders if the "addiction" approach is an end-around by those who wish to avoid the free speech issues. But he allows them to take that tack anyway.The film does contain some humor. The light approach makes the film watchable (and not totally laughable like Reefer Madness). The inherent bias is not as absurd as in a Michael Moore film.In the end, the film does not place enough responsibility on parents. It looks to the government for all its solutions.In one part, the sophistry amounts to the equation $ = power = bad. If the sex industry is big, it must be bad.The subjects used in the "study" conducted by the filmmaker were a single guy and a married couple. Three people. Should we questions the results because of sample size? Duh. Some of the survey questions they were asked were peppered with absolutes, e.g. "All women..." This skews the results so they are easily misunderstood by non-professionals.Arguments presented by the filmmaker and interviewees included many questionable premises, like "marriage is good" and "couples should tell each other about everything they think and experience".At one point, they discuss The Big Question. Well the real Big Question is: "WHO do you want to tell you what you can do?"The consortium of these sexual prohibitionists wants the government to dictate what is sexually "healthy", presumably because they know better than you do what is best for you. Thankfully, some of the therapists understand the bigger picture--that this is an issue of individual freedom. But even one guy who understands that still thinks we should leave it to the "community" to decide what is best for the individual, not the individual himself. The concept of "community standards" is just a smaller version of the unconstitutional idea of the government voiding individual freedoms. Were the Salem Witch Trials any better than the McCarthy Hearings just because they were on a local level?

Though it started out as an interesting documentary, it fast became a "DON'T LOOK AT PORN" and "THIS IS BAD." and there were so many different routes that the filmmaker could have gone down but ignored.For example, as much as he spoke about women's degradation and spoke to women who viewed porn as evil and disgusting, he failed to speak to women who enjoy porn. Not to mention the entire homosexual population. The only mention that gays got at all was a bookshop owner talking about buttplugs, and a few mentions here and there when talking about porn scenes. It could've been so much more, but ended up feeling like a 50's propaganda piece.