It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Would you believe that this very old movie, with little known stars (well, even back then, I suppose) has actually stood the test of time?Okay, towards the end, it shoots itself in the foot when the movie turns violent. But aside from that...I'm always on the look for controversial movies and when I read about this one, I was immediately intrigued. With something so old and with such an unknown cast and, on top of it, dealing with such a subject matter, I didn't even expect it to have been released on DVD, much less find it on my seller site, but I did.First off, let me just voice an objection. The current (2017) summary here on INDb was written by somebody (anonymous) who doesn't like the movie, and that particular style is fine (and entertaining enough) for a review, but absolutely unsuitable for a summary. To each their own, if they don't like a movie, they don't have to be nice, but summaries should be factual and impartial.The movie doesn't deserve to be derided. As for the deeply human characters, I have enjoyed watching, I was pleasantly surprised, it is a good movie. Yes, I'm into pretty actresses, we all know The Raven, but besides the obvious points of interest for me, it was surprisingly well done. The movie is almost fifty years old and I knew I was taking a big chance when I bought it sight unseen.I'm glad I did. Diana Dors is just way off-putting as the choice for Luci's Mom, and here's something else: Somebody who already knows pain (cancer) would choose being scalded by boiling water while bleeding to death because of razor slices as method of suicide? I think that nasty start should have been replaced with something more "sedate" like sleeping pills or so. That was just to shock! And the movie doesn't need it.Anyway, loved Linda Hayden and appreciate her fine performance. I do appreciate that she is the real thing, only fifteen years old, imagine this being done today!!! Good choice with mature female lead Ann Lynn as well.

Back in 1965 a modest five-hander slipped under the radar and attracted some tasty ink. It was shot in Gloomcolor which is black and white with a fog filter and the storyline followed two couples supported by the Thames. All five actors were more or less unknown and the film was called Four In The Morning. One of the males, Norman Rodway, worked steadily and in that same year played Hotspur in Orson Welles Chimes At Midnight, the finest Shakespeare movie ever made. Joe Melia also worked steadily without setting the world on fire as did Brian Phelan. One of the two females was Judi Dench, making her film debut, and what happened to her is anyone's guess. The other female, was Ann Lynn and she impressed me but slipped of my radar at least so when I noticed she had a role in Baby Love it was sufficient for me to watch it. Alas, I lived to regret it. Very wisely two of the five writers, Michael Robson and Henri Safran opted to remain uncredited, the other three clearly have no sense of shame. This is the kind of film that gives drek like The Texas Chain-Saw Massacre a good name. All I can say is give this one plenty of the back of your neck.

This nifty, late-60's British thriller is about a scheming teenage girl (Linda Hayden) who after her mother's suicide moves in with the family of her mother's married lover and proceeds to seduce all three of them (father, mother, teenage son)--two of whom may be blood relatives! If this sounds vaguely familiar, it's because it was the subject of an uncredited, near-remake by Hollywood in the early 1990's called "Poison Ivy", which spawned three increasingly trashy sequels and revived the career of Drew Barrymore. Hayden is actually much better here than Barrymore was in "Poison Ivy", but this movie is very hard to find today, no doubt because Hayden has several brief nude scenes and was about the same age at the time as her fifteen-year-old character. This is monumentally silly more than forty years later--half the adult population (women) have seen a girl that age naked, and the other half (let's just be honest here) probably have at some point in their lives. But we live in a society today where if a teenage girl sends nude photos of herself to her teenage boyfriend, instead of considering it a "teachable moment", we're more likely to charge them both with distributing child pornography! Anyway, whatever else she was, Linda Hayden was a criminally underrated actress. She got some attention for her appearances in Hammer's "Taste the Blood of Dracula" and as another sexy, evil vixen in "Blood on Satan's Claw" (where, incidentally, she has even more graphic and still-underage nude scenes as well). She had more bad luck after that though. She reunited with the director here (Alistair Reid) as well Peter Finch and Shelly Winters in another very solid thriller called "Something to Hide" that has been all hacked up and never released on DVD for no good reason I can tell. Her best performance perhaps though was in "The House on Straw Hill" (which makes it's likely inspiration, Sam Peckinpah's "Straw Dogs", look like a Disney film), but that entertaining but uber-sleazy venture became the only British-made film to be labeled a "video nasty" in Britain and it was banned there for many years. As a somewhat ironic result, it's considered a minor cult film there today(and was even remade in 2009), but was little seen outside of the UK. As for Hayden, she eventually took her considerable charms to dumb British sex comedies like the "Confessions of" series and "Queen Kong" (starring her then paramour Robin Askwith) before ending her career with a cameo role (mostly nude, of course) in "The Boys of Brazil".There's nothing much to say about the rest of the cast as this is Linda Hayden's show all the way. But there is a good cameo at the beginning by ill-fated, former glamor actress Diana Dors as the Hayden character's mother. As for the director, Alistair Reid, he's no doubt now written off as a "dirty old man" in some quarters for having directed this, but his "Something to Hide" and "Deadly Strangers" (with Hayley Mills and Sterling Hayden)were equally good British thrillers. I'd certainly recommend this.

Warning: Explicit nudity, lesbianism and all-around bad behavior make this a very poor choice for showing your kids or your 80 year-old mother.Wow. This is one sleazy movie and it's a shame, as a really good film seemed like it was hiding within and could have resulted had the direction and script been a little more clever and a little less sensationalistic. The disturbed relationships of all concerned did have the possibility of making a fine film.The movie starts with a middle-aged woman (Diana Dors) committing suicide. Her 15 year-old daughter inexplicably goes to live with her old lover and his new family. This really doesn't make much sense--you'd think there'd be SOMEONE related to her or a foster home instead of this person who she'd never even met. This is very contrived, but so be it. Once in this home, you are never sure how much this girl connives or just happens to fall into bizarre sexual relationships with the son, wife and tries desperately to have sex with the father!! In many ways, she appears to seek emotional love and support in the only way she understood--with her body. All in all, a surprisingly dark and twisted series of events that is rather hard to believe--especially in the end of the film when she is revealed to be a bit less naive than in the rest of the film.Sadly, had this movie taken more of the high road it actually could have been quite challenging but good entertainment. The Freudian aspects as well as as the idea of a sick family whose dynamics are thrown for a loop with the introduction of this troubled teen is fascinating. Think about it--because of their own inadequacies and unfulfilling relationships they each, in turn, seek it out in the girl. This could have been an interesting film that was less exploitation and more psychological. But, instead with glimpses here and there of the girl's body and lots of innuendo, the film just seemed more like soft-core porn than anything else.By the way, the 15 year-old in the film really was 15--making you feel, perhaps, a bit dirty for watching it. I just assumed she was of consenting age and was surprised when I looked it up on IMDb to see that somehow they got away with making a skin flick with an underage girl. That's rather sad.