Diary of a Sex Addict (2001) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski) and Tuna

Well, he gets it on with the cows, and then he uses butter as a lubricant, and then he really gets friendly with the milking machine and ...

... and that ain't a MILK moustache!

Oh, sorry, I was reviewing Dairy of a Sex Addict, not Diary

No such movie, but it would probably be far more interesting than this one, which is yet another twist on the softcore straight-to-vid films. In this case, the film includes three women whose names are eminently recognizable, two of whom have done a number of nude scenes. A large number. In double figures. 

Yet another new trick to market soft-core sex films: hire name actors, especially ones associated with nudity, put them in non-nude cameos, and put their names on the covers. Nastassja Kinski did her entire role sitting in a single chair, as did Ed Begley Jr. Alexandra Paul stood up, and even had a sex scene, but left her clothes on. Several sex scenes are done fully clothed, and all of them are done with panties on! Even Rosanna showed only one brief nipple. It isn't much of a softcore if you like nudity, but if you like rough sex talk, this could be your Gone With the Wind. 


Lots. See the commentary

Rosanna Arquette showed one nipple

Eva Jenikova and Joey House showed their breasts in extended sex scenes

some other women showed their breasts briefly, but there is no lower body exposure. All the women have sex with panties on

The main thrust of the film is a series of vignettes which show the behavior of a sex addict. As you might guess, these episodes involve sex. It is always very rough, loveless sex with plenty of dirty talk. He loves to demean women. Obviously he has some kind of mental problem, and we see that is related to his mother or Jesus or both, but we aren't sure exactly what or wherefore. 

The sex addict tells his problem to psychiatrist Kinski, then we see the episode, then back to the conversation in Kinski's office. The film is billed as a thriller, but I'm not sure where the thrill comes in. Mr Sex Addict gets laid, is contrite, but continues to do it, gets a false AIDS scare, but goes right back to it. He gets bolder and bolder with his obsession. The police catch him. Then his wife catches him. The end. I guess the thrill was whether he would get caught, but it was obvious that he would get caught eventually, so 

They shot this on video tape. There isn't much effort to do slick scene transitions, or background scoring, or any of that fancy-schmancy stuff. He tells the psychiatrist a story, then we see him humping away violently, screaming "you stupid twat, you mean nothing to me, you whore". Repeat as necessary.

Lame, really lame.

DVD info from Amazon.

  • Widescreen anamorphic, 1.85:1, or full screen (pan 'n scan)

  • no meaningful features

Tuna's comments in yellow: 

Diary of a Sex Addict (2001) has enough plot for a hard core film. A married chef/restaurant owner is a sex addict. As the film opens, he is having his first session with a shrink. So, the plot? "Tell me what  happened next." "I had sex with so and so." Only problem is they didn't make it a hard core, or even a soft core. The exposure is breasts only,  putting it on the exposure level of a tittly flick, but with nowhere near enough plot. Michael des Barres has vigorous simulated sex with a lot of women mostly in poor light, and not in very revealing poses. Further, all of this hot sex takes place through obvious panties.

 I could have missed a boob or two, but Rosannah Arquette as his wife shows half of an areola, and Tangie Ambrose, Shannon Leigh, Joey House and Eva Jenickova show breasts and partial buns. I will put up with a lot to see  tits, but this one is just not worth the effort. 

The Critics Vote

  • no reviews

The People Vote ...

  • With their votes ... IMDB summary: not enough votes for a score 
  • With their dollars ... straight to vid
IMDb guideline: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence, about like three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, about like two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, about like two stars from the critics. Films under five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film, equivalent to about one and a half stars from the critics or less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

My own guideline: A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. C means it will only appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover appeal. D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre. F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well.

Based on this description, this film is an E as a mainstream film, or D+ as a softcore. Even as a softcore, it is more dirty talk and wild sex scenes without much nudity. (Tuna says D+)

Return to the Movie House home page