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!

Mulciber I write about film professionally, but have never felt the drive to comment here. However, I read the previous viewer comment and was inspired. I stumbled on the thing much as the other writer did, and was similarly aghast. Probably deserves some special sort of recognition, and I'm happy to do my part in spreading the word. I can almost imagine this film being some sort of "Springtime for Hitler" -type scheme. It's text book bad. A must-see.

jwillia2 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.

perfectisolation I fell asleep on my couch at 7:35pm last night watching Larry Sanders (I usually DirecTivo it, but not last night). Woke up at 3am (invesment banker on the west coast), and was fascinated to see this on HBO2. I was shocked on how poor this 'movie' was. Seriously. shocked. So shocked that I had to write a commentary on iMDB. This is really really bad. the writing is boring, but the directing and editing are simply below those of a freshman at a film school.Yes it is shot video. Mind you, that is shot on VIDEO, not DIGITAL VIDEO. It does look like a soap opera. The clips from skateboard videos have a more 'film' feel to them then this horror.I wanted to describe the poor directing but i honestly cant remember anything. The shots and blocking are stupid. yes, i chose the word 'stupid'. not unconventional, not daring, not bold, not boring, just stupid. I know people reviewing this review will say "well give me an example". I cant. It was 3am. but trust me, I know you will watch it anyway, you will be drawn by the horrible reviews.