Crimes of Passion: So bad it's good? Or just plain BAD?

Okay, fam, just finished watching "Crimes of Passion" (1984) and I'm...confused. Kathleen Turner is AMAZING, no doubt, but the movie itself? Whew. It's like they threw every single taboo they could find into a blender and hoped for the best. Joanna Crane by day, China Blue by night – the whole dual identity thing is interesting, especially with Turner's performance. She completely sells both sides. But then you've got Anthony Perkins as the priest... Hoo boy. That whole plotline felt ripped from a fever dream mixed with a religious studies class gone horribly wrong. I'm not even sure what they were going for with him. Creepy? Yes. Compelling? Debatable. And John Laughlin as the private detective? Seemed kinda bland compared to the other two running around creating chaos. My question is, did anyone else feel like this movie was trying to be something profound but ended up being just a glorifed, over-the-top exploitation flick? I mean, the whole thing is visually interesting (the fashion, the neon lights), but does the shock value actually add anything meaningful? Or is it just a distraction from a pretty flimsy story? I'm genuinely curious what others think! And seriously, that ending? What WAS that ending? Did I miss something crucial, or did they just run out of ideas (and maybe budget)?