Surprisingly few people have reviewed this. I expected the Guardian reader to be fawning all over this la-dee-da art work? That they're not should serve as a warning to the wise.
This is dated, and has dated in a way that leaves it there (found bound in some 1970s cinema called the Rex - for the youngsters to get their kicks out of too little naughty, nudity - despite the sexual posters. The dirty men in their macs would have dominated this showing.
It's neither kinky or Bauhaus. It's pants, let me leave that there.
So if it has pretentious aspirations it doesn't make it. I found only the male lead to be convincing. He is easily aroused by George (and who couldn't be?) I wondered if she played this film for the laughs? This is no Killing of Sister George, the actors are poor and unconvincing as a mother daughter routine. (Reid and York (albeit not a mother/daughter relationship) nailed on acting they ain't!), I hope you get the point?
The male has a lazy role and that is convincing. Lazy man getting his oats and seen as a gallant chap rather than a male predatory perv. How cinema has changed!
The story does actually have a great twist and if you must watch it then I will not reveal or spoil the outcome. I will NEVER watch this again. Hence the 1/10. Unremarkable.
