SPOILERS! After Paula sleeps with the hot handyman, she says, "I never do this. For all I know, you could be a psycho." And he replies, "You could be a psycho." And that pretty much poignantly sums it up. At first, I thought this had some really big plot holes but then I wondered whether this ambiguity was on purpose to lead us down the wrong path. You're told up front the handyman (James) is the bad guy, and he does become a jealous, stalkery killer with a trashy home life and messed up childhood. What you learn as time goes on is that Paula (sociopath) is more "psycho" than James (psychopath) is. At least we know why he's screwed up, leading us to have at least some sympathy for him; we never know what has made her so and it makes her the real bad guy.
For example: we see James kill Phillip when he fights back while being blackmailed and can assume James didn't go there to kill him (he didn't even bring a weapon, he just uses an errant brick at the scene). James is blamed for the fire that maimed Paula's brother but we never see him do it. Could Paula have done it and used James as a convenient patsy? Her brother was an exhausting source of stress and she did kill him later (looks like a mercy killing, or was she finishing the job?). Maybe not, but something to consider once you have the hindsight of the ending. Also, when James tries to attack her in a restaurant bathroom and she empties a magazine at him at close range and doesn't hit him once, could this be on purpose so she can trap him on her terms later? She shoots up drugs at one point and you're like, why would she do this? Then you later wonder if it's because she's testing how much she needed to knock James out, showing how calculating she is.
My theory could be wrong but to me, it actually is a more enjoyable story this way than to sit there questioning all the plot holes the straight way. One thing is for sure, every scene with Tom Hughes is pure candy. I'm pretty sure it's illegal in most places for one man to be so gorgeous. That aside, his performance was raw and vulnerable and you felt more sorry for him in the end than her.
For example: we see James kill Phillip when he fights back while being blackmailed and can assume James didn't go there to kill him (he didn't even bring a weapon, he just uses an errant brick at the scene). James is blamed for the fire that maimed Paula's brother but we never see him do it. Could Paula have done it and used James as a convenient patsy? Her brother was an exhausting source of stress and she did kill him later (looks like a mercy killing, or was she finishing the job?). Maybe not, but something to consider once you have the hindsight of the ending. Also, when James tries to attack her in a restaurant bathroom and she empties a magazine at him at close range and doesn't hit him once, could this be on purpose so she can trap him on her terms later? She shoots up drugs at one point and you're like, why would she do this? Then you later wonder if it's because she's testing how much she needed to knock James out, showing how calculating she is.
My theory could be wrong but to me, it actually is a more enjoyable story this way than to sit there questioning all the plot holes the straight way. One thing is for sure, every scene with Tom Hughes is pure candy. I'm pretty sure it's illegal in most places for one man to be so gorgeous. That aside, his performance was raw and vulnerable and you felt more sorry for him in the end than her.