complete_video As many others have stated, this is a terrible movie, from every aspect of movie making. How they ever got some known name actors to take on this project is amazing.Many people have complained that it was shot on 'cheap' video cameras. Yes, it was shot on video, but not 'cheap' video. What made it bad was the lighting, white balancing, shooting technique and editing.There were so many different shooting and editing techniques used that it was a production mess. Harsh, inconsistent lighting, over use of hand held shooting (ala Woody Allen), choppy editing (another Allen technique), but poorly done, without real purpose.The lack of white balance in the restaurant kitchen scenes is embarrassing; very amateurish.The simulated sex scenes had no acting value at any level.How this video ever made it to print is beyond me. It is worth watching if only to be amazed at how bad it is.

Boba_Fett1138 This movie could had been an interesting character study and could had given some insight on its subject but real problem with this movie is that it doesn't have any of this in it. It doesn't give any insight-, or solutions to the problem. It's just the portrayal of 'old' male sex addict and the problems this is creating for his every day normal life and family. Why would you want to watch this? It's all so totally pointless and meaningless.It also really doesn't help that the main character is some wrinkly 50+ year old male. You'll have a hard time identifying yourself- and sympathize for him. He just seems like a dirty old playboy, who is an a constant hunt for woman and sex. He has all kinds of sexual intercourse's about 3 times a day with different woman and not just only with prostitutes.It also doesn't have a bad visual style, though it all feels a bit forced. But nevertheless it's all better looking than most other direct-to-video productions. Who knows, if the film-makers had been given better material to work with, the movie would had deserved a better faith.The story really gets ridicules at times. There are really some pointless plot-lines that are often more laughable than they were obviously supposed to be. I'm talking about for instance the whole Ordell plot-line. Things get worse once they movie starts heading toward the ending. Also the whole way the story is being told, cutting back and forth between the events that happened and the main character's sessions with his psychiatrist feels a bit cheap and simple.But as far as bad movies are concerned, this just isn't one of them. It's not really any better or worse than any other random straight-to-video flick, with similar concepts.Still seems weird and quite amazing that they managed to cast Nastassja Kinski and Ed Begley Jr. in such a simple small insignificant production as this one is. Guess they were really desperate for work and money.4/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

aubyte I liked this movie no matter what other reviewers have written about it. Suspense kept me throu the final titles and I watched it more than once. The main character being sexually addicted (who isn't:)) had a dilemma - his family was really conservative about sex (no sex with his wife is pathetic IMHO, she looks pretty). So the guy was driven to go to Shrink therapy to make him stay more close to his kid and wife than to other women. The therapy did nothing helpful (as always - you can't just get rid of natural sexual lust unless you get castrated). The culminating point is when his wife discovers the guy having threesome sex. Being very conservative b..ch (though I'd expect quite the opposite) she just freaks out. I'd say I expected slightly different ending - like his wife just lets his husband having sex cause he (and she) needs it and live happy life.Here is what I liked about this flic:1. No useless criminal-style plot as seems to be pervasive in soft porn movies.2. Very interesting plot depicting life details of a normal healthy man (everyone is a sex addict - I feel I need that like every day - so nothing is wrong with it).3. Very funny. I laughed sincerely over the scene with wife's sister.4. Shows true conclusion - no therapy will cure what is natural. Throw out of your head that crap about family or nothing. That guy just needs a wife that will match his sex habits - end of story.I LOVE THIS MOVIE. ONLY COMPLETE TARDS CAN KEEP THEIR FAMILY HOSTAGES OF SOCIAL DISEASES. BE SMART. SEX MAKES YOU HEALTHY AS LAUGHTER DOES. DON'T MISS THIS ONE!

Claudio Carvalho 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')