The Seduction of Dr. Fugazzi

The director of this little picture sure has her eye on the prize, as she casts Faye Dunaway as a gawky, awkward psychologist. Good one dear, this is just stupid, narcissistic crap. It's just an excuse for the writer and director, a rich kid, to put herself on screen and go crazy in an attempt to show how good an actress she thinks she is. She also believes that she has what it takes to bring about shock value in the tradition of 70s B flicks. Again, not going to happen here. Al we have is a student project that cries for attention because it's director cries for some status quo she will not get. Not like this anyway. Get outta town Kingsley. Your film SUCKs-SUX-SUKS-SUCS! You know what that means? It means it is not good!!! It's BAD-AVOID LIKE THE PLAGUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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.

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.

Definitely worth a look if you enjoy weird (stuff that makes NO SENSE at all), art-house-type films (shaky camera work and terrible acting) that defy the restrictive boundaries of contemporary, mainstream American films (in other words, it's so bad, there are NO WORDS IN THE English DICTIONARY TO DESCRIBE exactly how bad it is). Also, lots of perverse, wacky humour and sexually suggestive material (yep, when all else fails - revert to boobs and bottoms) that will rattle your delicate sensibilities for days to come (I've already forgotten about it - the only thing I'm wondering is why someone/ANYONE! would waste their time, let alone their money to watch it). Please DO NOT compare this movie to ANY movie (original or not) from Directors Lynch and Kubrick. It's like comparing J.K. Rowling to William Shakespeare. (In fact, not even that close).

I approach the film with much anticipation, given the hype - not least in IMDb postings and the tag-PR spin to most of us- A strange, twisted psycho-sexual thriller depicting one woman's depraved descent into madness and mayhem!!!! The opening scenes however, proved the harbinger of what was to come – in a nutshell, a college project, which didn't quite make the grade. The script and visual narrative were awash with poorly assembled clichés masquerading as 'weird'! The transparent script was trumped by Kingsley horrendous acting ability - I have routinely seen more depth and substance in undergraduate theatre. As is often the case, and vain attempt was made to spice up the incoherent, pretentious and contrived script, extremely poor acting and direction with sexual imagery - in the hope that scenes of bondage, s & M, group sex, etc. might save the day. Alas, not even the renowned Ms Dunaways could deliver the kiss of life to this astonishing assembly of nonsense.