Home > Horror >

The Seduction of Dr. Fugazzi

The Seduction of Dr. Fugazzi (2009)

January. 01,2009
|
2.9
| Horror Thriller

Dr. Anna Fugazzi is a young, attractive psychologist with a loving and devoted (albeit freakish) boyfriend, plenty of stimulating friends, and a bright future ahead of her. But beneath her perfect life and calm exterior lies a deadly secret that she herself cannot imagine, much less confront!!! There is a delicate balance between reality and illusion, between conscious and the subconscious, and for Dr. Fugazzi, the truth lies somewhere in between the beauty of her present life and the horror of the not-too-distant past!!! Shocked by hallucinations and deadly images, tantalized by familiar, eerie voices, provoked by her deranged and knowing patients, and daily nightmares that awaken her in a strange, white room, Dr. Fugazzi takes an inhuman journey into her very psyche!!!!

...

Watch Trailer

Cast

Reviews

AniInterview
2009/01/01

Sorry, this movie sucks

More
TrueHello
2009/01/02

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

More
Nayan Gough
2009/01/03

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

More
Scarlet
2009/01/04

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

More
trishaade
2009/01/05

I don't know where to even begin with this.On the one hand, although the concept is not new, it was taken further than some other movies I've seen and almost everything makes sense by the end. I had a lot of issues with what led up to the end, but in the whole scheme of things, most of it comes together. Some of the more artistic scenes are interesting as well.That being said, this film suffers from really bad acting with the exception of two characters. The worst offender is the lead - my understanding is that Ms. Kingsley wrote and directed the movie, however, an actress she is not. It mas a mistake on her part to cast herself in the title role - she comes off as ridiculous and even after it is all said and done, is not believable at all. She has as much depth as a 5 minute rain puddle. There are some sex scenes written into the film which felt quite contrived and caused me to do nothing but roll my eyes. Those were badly acted as well with the primary culprit again being Ms. Kingsley. They didn't really add to the story either - as many reviewers have mentioned, it appears Ms. Kingsley thinks that those particular scenes would either save the movie or make it relevant or cool and/or that she's quite the hottie. No on all counts.There are also some badly written sections in the film - I could forgive those if they weren't so badly acted.So the bottom line is that even Faye Dunaway can't save this movie. I think it had the potential to be better than what it was, but the fact that the director and writer of the movie thought she had the chops to manage the title role ruined it for me. If you are looking for an example of how not to handle a dramatic role that requires some depth, this movie is for you. If not, you better pass.

More
manansanghvi
2009/01/06

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.

More
Aka_Who
2009/01/07

Well, this movie sounded interesting enough at least. A few uniquely shot visually askew scenes were appealing to the eye. Other than that this film was a complete train wreck. The video quality rivaled that of a poorly shot home movie. The story felt desperate to be unique and tried just a little too hard which only proved to counter-act the feel it was going for. This whole project came across as a hyper self indulgent experiment for the writer-actor-director October Kingsley. I think she honestly thought she was sexy in this movie *shivers*. The acting abilities of Kingsley and most others involved was nothing short of atrocious. All I can say is avoid this one at all costs. -PGDGM-

More
paulfergz
2009/01/08

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

More