Let's be realistic.

Too much about the plot just didn't add up, the writing was bad, some of the scenes were cringey and awkward,

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

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?

This movie could have been a decent B-movie if 3/4 of the the movie wasn't so much focusing on the sex scenes. I mean, he's a sex addict, and I'm sure that there's a lot more that goes on with sex addicts outside of having sex on a constant basis. Michael Des Barres did a good job considering what all he had to do, which wasn't much. At one point or another, one would have to laugh at him, because his character was so pitiful. Nastassja Kinski was alright in her role as the concerned sex therapist, she could've of done more though and I'm not suggesting her having sex. The person that stood out the most to me in this movie was Rosanna Arquette in her convincing role as the loving and concerned wife. There's something about beautiful inside and out that strongly appeals to me. She played that role and as you watched the movie, you start to feel bad for her."Diary Of A Sex Addict" while not Oscar material or a modern classic to anyone's standards, is quite informative and does a fair job in showing you how one's personal demons can take over and ruin the very things in life you think highly of.

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.

Just happened across this last night channel surfing. Saw that it was shot in video, but it looked like high quality on my 19" bedroom tv, so I went into the living room, fired up the HDTV. It was shot on video. High Definition video, and it looked amazing.While it was, to a certain degree, a bit of a fable (as in, where sex addiction leads), it definitely had some outstanding points. Michael Des Barres was both charming and disturbing as the addicted restauranter, Sammy Horn (I'm sure the pun is intended). Nastassia Kinski, as his therapist, was stunning in her ability (primarily through dialogue) to express sincere compassion. Rosanna Arquette is outstanding as his charming, beautiful wife, and even more outstanding when she learns of his infidelities.All of the actors (especially the ones who took their clothes off) took a big chance doing this project; unlike film that's been transferred to high-definition, HD video shows every single little detail--and every little flaw. It also serves this particular subject matter well. Instead of just another straight-to-video movie-with-a-message, the choice to go with high-definition video gives DOASA a more immediate feel, more of an "it's happening now" mood. It's also a bit more voyeuristic and personal than film. Lighting and production design with such a sensitive medium are critical, and cinematographer Nathan Hope and PD Oliver French did a great job--particularly in the therapist's office and Sammy's restaurant. I think the choice to use HD makes this movie stand out. While stories of addiction are by no means new or original, an HD movie about this particular addiction combined with such great performances makes DOASA a powerful viewing experience.