I'm not usually into these type of films: love triangles, jealousy etc., mainly because each film is basically the same plot but I keep watching them hoping for something different. Is this film different? Yes. Yes, this film is different. Probably because you have a Sexploitation director behind it; and yes, this film has elements of Sexploitation but it's less that and more of a Drama; one that, if it didn't have so much nudity, you could watch it with your mom, unless you have a free-spirited mother who isn't prudish.
It does have its flaws. While there are some A-listers in this, the acting is wooden, at times. And while I think some of the actors improvised with their lines, it didn't help in certain scenes. There's a mystery element to the film, and I'm not talking about the supposed murder but the introduction of the characters like Sarah (the housekeeper), Cynthia (the daughter), who's just creepy and a bit incestuous, in my opinion; and though the character of Paul barely breathes in this film, even he has a bit of a mystery to him. Are the mysteries hard to figure out? No.
Some of the photography is lame. Like the 'dun dun dun' moments. You know: the freeze frame at the end of certain scenes. The haziness when a scene approaches a 'dun dun dun' moment. Even the paranoia scenes become pretty lame. The 'murder' scene isn't even murder, it was clearly self-defense. Adultery isn't a crime, even with your step-mother. The ultimate problem with that scene is: it seemed to imply or outright state "It was murder!" The father attacked his son, and then tried to shoot him with a pistol. The son fell to the floor and grabbed something nearby and stabbed his father with it, killing him. Self-defense. Yet the next scene Steve tells his step-mother "We're not guilty of anything. We've killed someone who's already dead." That last part eludes to the fact that Steve's father went missing earlier and was presumed dead. Also, "we" is nonsensical. Steve killed his father (in self-defense), it wasn't planned, at least not by Steve. Adultery isn't a crime in the US, it may be immoral but not a crime. The crime they both commited was getting rid of the body and making it appear as murder to anyone who doesn't know it was self-defense. Of course Karen (the step-mother) mentions this later but Steve's an idiot and thinks he knows what he's doing. Of course, to a point: the same could be said of Karen. If one thinks I gave too much away, you're mistaken. The true villain is revealed in the beginning and one is just waiting for s/he's grand entrance. You get it in the last two minutes of the film.
The film, as a whole, is cliché, subplots hurried along, main characters (like Paul and Sarah) who are prominent in the beginning and disappear entirely in the last second act, and questions unanswered yet I still enjoyed it. That's something.
It does have its flaws. While there are some A-listers in this, the acting is wooden, at times. And while I think some of the actors improvised with their lines, it didn't help in certain scenes. There's a mystery element to the film, and I'm not talking about the supposed murder but the introduction of the characters like Sarah (the housekeeper), Cynthia (the daughter), who's just creepy and a bit incestuous, in my opinion; and though the character of Paul barely breathes in this film, even he has a bit of a mystery to him. Are the mysteries hard to figure out? No.
Some of the photography is lame. Like the 'dun dun dun' moments. You know: the freeze frame at the end of certain scenes. The haziness when a scene approaches a 'dun dun dun' moment. Even the paranoia scenes become pretty lame. The 'murder' scene isn't even murder, it was clearly self-defense. Adultery isn't a crime, even with your step-mother. The ultimate problem with that scene is: it seemed to imply or outright state "It was murder!" The father attacked his son, and then tried to shoot him with a pistol. The son fell to the floor and grabbed something nearby and stabbed his father with it, killing him. Self-defense. Yet the next scene Steve tells his step-mother "We're not guilty of anything. We've killed someone who's already dead." That last part eludes to the fact that Steve's father went missing earlier and was presumed dead. Also, "we" is nonsensical. Steve killed his father (in self-defense), it wasn't planned, at least not by Steve. Adultery isn't a crime in the US, it may be immoral but not a crime. The crime they both commited was getting rid of the body and making it appear as murder to anyone who doesn't know it was self-defense. Of course Karen (the step-mother) mentions this later but Steve's an idiot and thinks he knows what he's doing. Of course, to a point: the same could be said of Karen. If one thinks I gave too much away, you're mistaken. The true villain is revealed in the beginning and one is just waiting for s/he's grand entrance. You get it in the last two minutes of the film.
The film, as a whole, is cliché, subplots hurried along, main characters (like Paul and Sarah) who are prominent in the beginning and disappear entirely in the last second act, and questions unanswered yet I still enjoyed it. That's something.