Watch Addicted For Free

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

Addicted (2014) is a movie about a wife and mother going behind her husband and whole family's back to cheat with several men. She starts to see a therapist about her need for sex all the time, and she learns she's a sex addict. The acting is alright, in some scenes it can seem a little hokey or soap opera like, but most of the time it's just fine. The lead actress did do a good job, her acting is by far the best in the whole cast. The writing is spotty. In some parts the dialogue is just fine, not incredible, but it suffices. Then there are some scenes where the dialogue is pretty cheesy/melodramatic. The sexual scenes don't go overboard and they are well lit and filmed. It was good to see that the sex scenes weren't like pornographic, because I think when the sex scenes go that far it ends up taking away from the movie as a whole. I don't really know if I would suggest this movie. I'll say this. If there is nothing else on and this is on TV, it's worth a watch, but if there's something better on or you have other options, then no. 6/10.

*CONTAINS SPOILERS* The movie failed to live up to its promise.I've never seen 50 Shade of Gray, but I've seen its box office results and I've seen its higher score.As a black film goer, I wondered if "Addicted's" lack of box office success had anything to do with the fact that the protagonist was black and not white. After watching the film, it turned out that the film just didn't fulfill its potential, its promise. It had little to do with color.It's difficult making the movie you want. So much goes into it and so many unexpected curveballs. The main thing that stuck out to me: 1. As another reviewer stated, this could have been entitled "Insatiable" instead of "Addicted" There is a difference.2. Sex scenes are fine if they drive the story forward, showing her addiction. As with most addicts, there's deep pain and guilt after the act. The high only last so long and then the addict has to get their fix again. I didn't see that. I didn't see her suffering any pain, any remorse, any suffering from her addiction. On the contrast, my perspective was she was happy and content with her sexual escapades and this makes her seem more of an 'insatiable' woman versus a woman with an addiction.3. The husband is pretty clueless. Yes he works many hours as she does, but we should have seen a spark of suspicion that would later grow into a raging inferno. The opportunity to build suspense here was missed in a big way. The other thing of note is that she misses her son's soccer game after she promised him she would be there. The husband shows no empathy towards his child nor does he question her on how she could miss such an important event. Not believable.4.Going back to the sex scenes, I'm not big on them, but if you have a story dealing with sex, you need them. Problem here, they were pretty basic. Scene with masturbation was interesting...and that where it pretty much ended. The scenes were basic Sex 101. Nothing inventive. I didn't feel her addiction. An implied threesome would have been interesting...different locations....an alley, on a train, a scene with her children's teacher or a guy stranded on the side of the road. Her choices were safe. Addicts put themselves in danger. I got no sense of danger.5. How could Zoe not take a call from a big time investor or potential influential partner is baffling. We have to assume it was because of her addiction and probably the filmmakers were betting that we would make that assumption but the lack of the filmmakers effort to at least try was disappointing. Then Zoe misses a meeting with that same big time investor is baffling....but with the proper setup or scene to show why would have make it more believable so consequently it seems ridiculous that she would miss such an importing meeting.6. Husband shows up just in time to save the day. Near the end of the film where one of her lovers goes crazy when she wants to end it, her husband miraculously shows up to save her. Also, the fact that the lover goes crazy came out of nowhere. Didn't see it coming. Again, setup was poor.7. She gets back together with her husband...despite all the flaws mentioned, I actually bought this...partly because this part of the film was structured better. You see the husband go through a progression discovery, rejection, pain, understanding and acceptance. You do get a sense that he is more understanding of Zoe's addiction. 8. For me the acting was solid. Other reviewers might have been so disgusted with the film, everything was just bad. I wouldn't say that. To be fair, the actors did well. No problem there. Dialogue was okay, but the biggest problem the film suffered from was it's structure.

This movie has a lot of problems.Briefly, it's the story of a young professional woman, Zoe, with a husband, Jason, who would be every woman's - and some men's - wet dream. He has a perfect, muscled body, a smile that could melt an iceberg, and he even washes the dishes. They have sex 2 or 3 times a day. Not a week, a day.But it isn't enough for her. She wants more.But more of what? That's one of the problems with this movie. There is a lot of sex in it, though none of it shocking by modern movie standards. But for all the sex, we still have to guess at what Zoe wants. Is it yet more sex? Different sex? Kinkier sex? Is this a distant cousin to *Fifty Shades of Grey* that dares not speak of its desires? Zoe hooks up with an unsubtle but muscled white painter - who, in my eyes, has no talent - and has with him what looks like pretty much the same sort of sex she had been having with her husband. Then she hooks up with a messenger on a motorcycle. Their sex, though no doubt wonderful, looks pretty much the same as what she is having with the other two men, though it usually takes place on a table.In between all this, Zoe ignores her children and lets her work go down the drain. She is, we are to believe, a sex addict.That's the first problem. Zoe comes across as insatiable, but not really addicted. She only has men who are so astoundingly handsome/sexy that they would tempt all but the most virtuous. Yet if this movie had been called *Insatiable*, she would have come across as a harlot rather than a sick individual to be pitied, and would have lost the sympathies of the intended audience of well-meaning 20-40 something women. If she were actually addicted to sex, she would have had sex with anyone, and that is not the case. She is only attracted to the hottest men.The second problem is that her poor husband, Jason, evidently detects nothing once Zoe is unfaithful to him - daily. When he does finally learn he's unhappy, of course, but we know so little about him, he's so poorly developed, that we still can't sympathize with him, though he is the potentially most sympathetic character in the movie.These actors could probably all have done a lot better if they had been given a script that had developed characters and not just cardboard cut-outs. As it is, we get to watch a lot of evidently passionate sex performed by beautiful bodies, and then at the end have to listen to a few lectures on sexual addiction, which don't come across as very convincing. Zoe's particular case is never explored, so it's hard to believe in it or feel for her.Zoe's sexual problems with Jason needed to be made clearer. How was he failing her? Jason needs to have been given a character; it's not enough for him just to look great. The script just doesn't make any of the characters interesting and sympathetic, and that's fatal here.

I read this book years ago, and loved it for its thriller nature, especially towards the end (when you think everything is alright after her suicide attempt, but it really wasn't). The movie really twisted some things, and I know movies will never likely be the same as the books they were created from, but still. The painters name was Quinton Matthews, and he was Black. Quinton's FATHER left for another woman, and his MOTHER committed suicide (or so he says). The other guy's name was Tyson (who had a crazy side chick named Dusty who revealed he'd been locked up for domestic violence once). Brina never worked for Zoe. Brina was in an abusive relationship, and was murdered by the boyfriend(Dempsey). Zoe slept with Diamond too. Jason discovered Zoe was cheating when Tyson came to his job and told him. Zoe was actually hit by a flower truck. Zoe remembered she was raped via hypnosis. Jason was the son of a prostitute and this is why he doesn't like to "experiment" sexually (which makes total sense). The mother never stayed with the family, she re-married after Zoe's father died, and lived in another state. After Zoe got out of the hospital, Jason got her a dog, which was killed by Quinton (he grilled the dog on THEIR grill...sick man smh). Zoe and Jason went into hiding for fear of their lives, and Quinton followed them and almost kills them both, saying the cliché "if I can't have you, no one else can". It turned out Quinton also killed his parents, Diamond, Tyson, the cops guarding Zoe and Jason in hiding, Brina's boyfriend, AND every other woman he'd ever been with and buried them all under the family mural he showed Zoe. I just wished all of this was in the movie too.