The Seduction of Dr. Fugazzi

One of the worst movies I have ever seen. I really cannot understand why some people here are writing wonders about it. I ask myself what kind of movies they are used to.

To make it short, Kingsley is not only a very poor screenplay writer, but also a very bad actress and an even worse director. There is no rhythm, no energy, no wit, no will. Everything is so poor that you might think the whole project was intended to be a practical joke all along. Overall acting is bellow what could be accepted in a B movie, except of course, for Faye Dunaway, always a great lady on the screen. In fact, when Kingsley acts alone with her, she seems to improve a little bit. My question is... what was Dunaway doing, mingling with that mediocre crowd??? Difficult to understand...

Keep away from this piece of trash! There is no other way to describe it.

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.

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).

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.

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.