The Seduction of Dr. Fugazzi

It was obviously very low budget, but I think the director shows promise. The actors need to work on their authenticity (with the exception of Faye Dunnaway). The storyline was pretty intriguing, although predictable for someone that's watched a lot of movies. However, I like the fact that the story actually comes to a conclusion of some sort, although some editing at the end would have been beneficial. I can't stand movies that just sort of fizzle out with no sense of completion, so I applaud the director for picking a decent story that actually ends at a logical point. It's also nice to see a woman of apparent Indian decent in a lead role.

I have rarely seen such an awful film as this one. Its one redeeming feature is that from time to time the cinematography is "quite" nice. Otherwise, it's utterly terrible. The dialogue, well, what can you say? I don't think I can come up with enough negative superlatives to evoke how cliché-ridden and quite frankly wooden (something that complements the acting) the script is. It's the kind of script that you can complete in your head before the lines are delivered.

As with someone who commented above, I only made it to the end because I thought that maybe, just maybe, 'normality' would be presented with a complete shift of both the dialogue and the cinematic tone. This was about the only justification I could think of as to why the rest of it was so bad. But oh no, that idea had obviously not occurred to anyone involved in actually making the film. Did no one tell the writer/director/star of this appalling example of film that the whole thing was a disaster? I'd be interested in meeting representatives of the companies that funded this venture because I have a little proposition for them.

Meanwhile, avoid this shockingly bad film at all costs - even the apparently sexy October K blows it by thinking herself super-sexy

The camera angle, the light, primarily one performer - I rather had the impression I was watching a piece of theater. If you're not attracted by the actress, if you don't enjoy watching her, it will not work for you. For me it did, moreover, it felt like I attended the rise of a great talent.

The story is about lunatics, this easily attracts my interest. On my ranking list "Shining" pins the lower end opposing the Belgian "Calvaire" which I guess is hard to beat. David Lynch was mentioned here, but that's something different, though if you can enjoy his movies you're more likely enjoy this one too, rather than if you waiting for the next "Saw" sequel.

They should have rules here at IMDb that people who've made the films shouldn't add reviews, because any review that gives this film higher than 1 star (mind you there's no option for zero)....has got to be someone from the movie cast and crew, most probably the self obsessed director/actor. There are a lot of good low budget movies out there, so the budget wasn't the issue here. I'm no expert here but I could have acted a whole lot better than some of them actors...if I had agreed to work on such a ridiculous script. It is highly likely that Faye Dunnaway had no clue what she was getting into when she agreed to do this movie. All in all, stay away. Don't fall for the film cover.

Okay, my previous review was deleted by IMDb based on an abuse report filed by another user. Good, are you the director of this crap? The movie is mediocre and I'm not the only one to think it is an awful movie.

I will try to be indulgent.

This isn't just an incredibly bad movie, it is truly the worst film ever made. The director has graduated to being a terrible director, a terrible actress and a terrible writer. The script is a nightmare of crass and student dialogues.

I can forgive Faye Dunaway. She starred in Bonnie and Clyde, won an Oscar and is now reduced to do this dog in order to raise money for her own film as director. She is the only actor of the movie.

I've been indulgent.