Evengyny Thanks for the memories!

Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

CommentsXp Best movie ever!

Maidexpl Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast

smatysia One of the earlier entries in the creepy stalker genre. At the time, Morgan Fairchild was very popular on television, and this film was largely seen as an excuse for her to appear naked. Her nude scenes were quite brief and not very explicit, so I don't know if maybe some folks were disappointed. She was beautiful throughout, clothed or not. Colleen Camp was also good in a small part. Overall, the film was okay, nothing special, looked a little cheap on the production values.

preppy-3 Stupid "thriller". Ridiculously beautiful TV anchorperson Jamie Douglas (Morgan Fairchild) has it all--a successful career, a big beautiful house (that no anchor could ever afford) and a loving boyfriend (Michael Sarrazin). She also has a photographer who adores her named Derek (Andrew Stevens). However his adoration turns into stalking and Jamie begins to fear for her life.I had totally forgotten about this thing (I can't call it a movie) until it just popped into my head recently (for whatever reason). I remember seeing it on cable TV back in 1982. I set my expectations on low because let's face it--this was only made to show Fairchild nude a couple of times. It was even worse than I expected! The plot was illogical with some truly preposterous "twists". It got boring really quick. The ending especially was bad and seemed sort of rushed.Fairchild was (and is) a beautiful woman and she looks great here--but she can't act. She tries her best but she just can't pull it off. I actually got uncomfortable seeing the poor woman attempt to act. Sarrazin can be good--but not here. He looks terrible and is far too old for Fairchild (he's 10 years older than her in real life--and it shows). I spent most of the movie wondering what her character ever saw in the guy. Stevens was never a good actor but he is handsome and kind of playful in the role. But, all in all, this was a boring and stupid "thriller". Also Fairchild's nude scenes are brief (if you're watching for that). A 1 all the way.

perpwalk Some people may snicker at this film, but back in the heady days of 1982 we just weren't as sophisticated about the celebrity stalker phenomenon as we are today. We didn't have to be, it was a more gracious and civilized time to live and, I might add, a golden era for television.But dark days were just around the corner and those of us in the public eye owe the lovely Ms. Fairchild quite a debt for her eye-opening work on this film. I myself found it particularly enlightening when she demonstrated the dangers of being stalked while showering, swimming nude or taking a bubble bath while stroking one's silky thighs.I'd also like to say that though some philistines may have nominated Colleen Camp for a Golden Raspberry award, I thought she was fantastic in her role, though we could have seen more of her.

Isaac5855 Just like VALLEY OF THE DOLLS and THE LUCKY LADY, 1982's THE SEDUCTION is one of those movies that is so bad that it is funny. It is funny but not to the point of multiple viewings, like DOLLS, it's funny once and that's it. Morgan Fairchild (in one of the worst performances by an actress in a 1980's film) plays a television anchorwoman who gets stalked by a psycho (Andrew Stevens, in an equally bad performance). This incredibly tired plot has been done so many times and it has been done so much better than this. Fairchild can't act and Stevens is way over the top. Michael Sarrazin is wasted as Fairchild's boyfriend and Vince Edwards is wooden as a police office to whom Sarrazin goes to for help. Maybe one of the ten worst films ever made. Unless you have wet dreams about Morgan Fairchild, don't bother.