The Seduction (1982) from Tuna and Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski)

Tuna's notes

The Seduction (1982) is an early stalker movie. Morgan Fairchild is a prominent news anchor. A deranged photographer decides he loves her, and she must also love him back. It starts with him spying on her with long telephoto lenses, then he becomes bold enough to contact her. At this point in history, there were no stalking laws, and the police could do nothing. Eventually, it is up to her to bring him down.

There isn't much wrong with the story, although a few plot points are hard to swallow, but the acting was uniformly bad, even earning three Razzie nominations. In fact, some of the line delivery was so bad, I suspect the director was not even there for the filming. Morgan did look very good, and the stalker premise was new in 1982, but now it is just another badly acted movie.



It's a pretty decent DVD for a bad 1980s movie. The widescreen 2.35:1 transfer is good; there are three new featurettes with the film's creators looking back on it; and there is also a full-length commentary by the director and two producers, which is pretty bland except when they are all ripping on Vince Edwards! It seems that Vince was a real tool.



Morgan Fairchild shows everything, albeit in brief teases, in several nude scenes.

There are several women topless in the background in a spa scene

Scoop's notes

Everything Tuna said up there is fair, but I have probably watched this film ten times. There are a few moments of it that I might have watched a hundred times back in the eighties. I think I wore out a VHS tape that I recorded off HBO.  Back in those days the pause button didn't really work that well, and a paused image would usually get some distortion, and might even screw up the tape.

So what was all the fuss about?

Dude, Morgan Fairchild naked!

She was then a monster TV star because of her starring role on Flamingo Road, and she was a goddess, with a spectacular figure and an unearthly flawless face like a young Deneuve.  She had never been seen naked in public before this film. In fact, she had never even been in a film, naked or clothed. Look at it this way: this was the 1982 equivalent to Katie Holmes taking off her shirt in The Gift. But it was better. Imagine Katie having a much prettier face, being a much bigger star, never having been in any previous movies, and removing her panties briefly. That would be hot, right? Well, this was that hot.

The film itself was sort of a half-A, half-B hybrid.

On the "A" side of the ledger, it has some magnificent cinematography, and a score composed by an Oscar winner. In addition, the production values look rich, and the stalking theme was a fresh, hot-button topic These producers had in mind about the same thing that Body Heat's creators were going for -  elegant eroticism with a fresh star in a slick package.

Of course, we knew Body Heat, senator, and you are no Body Heat! Tuna summarized the film's failings. Lacking the scripting of Lawrence Kasdan and the charisma of Hurt and Turner, The Seduction was not prepared to take the field in the Body Heat league. The acting can be dreadful, led by Dr. Ben Casey (Vince Edwards is his real name) as a cop and Michael Sarrazin as Morgan Fairchild's boyfriend. The Razzies singled out Fairchild and her character's gal-pal played by Colleen Camp, but those two seemed like Dench clones compared to Sarrazin and Edwards. How bad is a movie when Andrew Stevens has all the acting chops? And some of the film's logic is preposterous. When the evil stalker kills the boyfriend in the hot tub (while he is in Fairchild's arms!), the killer drags the victim's body off to the hills to bury him, leaving Fairchild free to go inside and call the police, or even to get dressed and leave completely. She manages to do neither of those things, and I guess you might believe that she was in shock, but you can't believe that he could anticipate that. From his point of view, he murders a guy in front of his girlfriend, then wanders off for an hour or more to bury the guy with a little shovel, thus leaving the witness unattended. 

Except for the last ten minutes of the film, absolutely nothing happens. The plot is so paper-thin that the film had to be padded out to feature length with scenes of Ms. Fairchild swimming, bathing, preening, hot-tubbing, etc. The visceral impact of the only action (the boyfriend's murder) is immediately nullified by the confusing and seemingly interminable burial. Only the last scene, which presents the actual face-to-face confrontation between stalker and stalkee, is actually quite entertaining in an over-the-top way. Having exhausted all of her other choices, she manages to defeat him by coming on to him in a really trashy, aggressive way. Once he loses the power in the relationship, his hard-on deflates! Before the credits roll, we will hear Morgan Fairchild say "fuck me," and we will see her blasting away at the guy with a shotgun, blowing out windows and generally wreaking havoc in her own house. That part was campy fun, but the film just took too long to get there, with nothing for the viewer to do along the way but try to get a decent glimpse of Morgan Fairchild's flesh.

Which I certainly did plenty of in the early 80s, as bad as the film was.

The Critics Vote ...

  • No major reviews online


The People Vote ...

The meaning of the IMDb score: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence equivalent to about three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, comparable to approximately two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, equivalent to about a two star rating from the critics, or a C- from our system. Films rated below five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film - this score is roughly equivalent to one and a half stars from the critics or a D on our scale. (Possibly even less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

Our own guideline:

  • A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre.
  • B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. Any film rated B- or better is recommended for just about anyone. In order to rate at least a B-, a film should be both a critical and commercial success. Exceptions: (1) We will occasionally rate a film B- with good popular acceptance and bad reviews, if we believe the critics have severely underrated a film. (2) We may also assign a B- or better to a well-reviewed film which did not do well at the box office if we feel that the fault lay in the marketing of the film, and that the film might have been a hit if people had known about it. (Like, for example, The Waterdance.)
  • C+ means it has no crossover appeal, but will be considered excellent by people who enjoy this kind of movie. If this is your kind of movie, a C+ and an A are indistinguishable to you.
  • C means it is competent, but uninspired genre fare. People who like this kind of movie will think it satisfactory. Others probably will not.
  • C- indicates that it we found it to be a poor movie, but genre addicts find it watchable. Any film rated C- or better is recommended for fans of that type of film, but films with this rating should be approached with caution by mainstream audiences, who may find them incompetent or repulsive or both. If this is NOT your kind of movie, a C- and an E are indistinguishable to you.
  • D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. We don't score films below C- that often, because we like movies and we think that most of them have at least a solid niche audience. Now that you know that, you should have serious reservations about any movie below C-. Films rated below C- generally have both bad reviews and poor popular acceptance.
  • E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre.
  • F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well.


Based on this description, this film is a D+. There is no good reason to watch this film unless you want to see Morgan Fairchild naked. (Not that bad a reason, now that I think about it.)

Return to the Movie House home page