Exposed

However, the marketing certainly is. It's not as exclusively idiotic as in the case of Cormac McCarthy/Ridley Scott's very formidable "The Counselor" (what you should know about that picture is that it's not a plot-driven thriller about trafficking, but an existential drama so gloomy that "Se7en" seems to be offering more hope in comparison … and now look at its poster), but the poster and the plot summary for this one produced by the studio and featured on IMDb are obviously misleading as well (even after the studio did its totally uncalled for re-editing of the material) and create false expectations. Hence – disappointed viewers and the abysmal rating.

So what else "Exposed" is NOT:

• This is not a movie starring Keanu Reeves. In fact, Reeves' character plays a very insignificant role in the developments. But unlike Emily Blunt's virtually 'non-existing' lead in "Sicario" that ultimately ruins that otherwise interesting and well-directed flick, it doesn't ruin anything here, because this movie more or less manages to get through the studio's irrational indeed interference and somehow remains centered around a female protagonist played by Ana de Armas. And Reeves should have been credited in the same way as Mira Sorvino is – "and Keanu Reeves".

• This movie is not an action thriller either. Police work and corrupt cops are present but seen from a different angle.

What is "Exposed" then? Despite all the carnage caused by the studio's decisions, it's still a legit psychological drama with half of its dialogue in Spanish, which structure resembles those another Spanish speaker Borges found fascinating in many Chesterton's stories – we have two explanations: a supernatural one and a realistic one. While all the story lines are not perfectly pulled together – again, probably thanks to precious alterations introduced by the "suits" – overall, the writing is competent. So is the directing. The acting could have been better at times, but it doesn't affect the movie in any critical way. All in all, it's a quite decent one – slightly above average.

If I'm not mistaken, Terry Gilliam said that after a nuclear disaster there will be two surviving species: cockroaches and studio executives. Well … long live Cockroaches!

While Knock-Knock was a mishap, Keanu Reeves still carries the buzz from John Wick, so it's peculiar to see his new movie flies under the radar. It's soon apparent that "Exposed" has a rather jumbled presentation. The movie uses multi perspective style and it does try to deliver heavy subject such as abuse, but it's ultimately too broken to create any appropriate connection.

The two perspectives are too messy, as though the screenplay or editing is done sloppily. Keanu's point of view is that of noir detective, although the investigation moves so slowly and erratically. Meanwhile Ana de Armas plays as a troubled wife who might just see some apparition. From the color tone, the pace and even the script, these two stories are utterly different.

It's not to say that there's not an artistic goal in mind, it could have dealt with mature theme well, however the jarring shift is confusing to say the least. It would jump from festive vibe, to brooding case and suddenly to what seems to be psychological thriller with metaphor. This is a really odd direction and it doesn't have to be such, it feels as though the movie tries to needlessly overreach.

Both the leads perform admirably, in some instances Ana de Armas looks amiable and Keanu Reeves still has his appealing presence. However, the plot is chaotic, there would be incredibly slow development and subplots, yet it would hasten abruptly in mere minutes. The few segments from other angles don't really pan out in the grand scheme, while its intended twist is hampered by over saturation of horror genre, which is odd to see in crime drama.

This kind of sudden change is not uncommon, some thriller movies shifted to more action atmosphere for casual audience or some action flicks would be altered to accommodate more famous stars. Still, the extreme shift of tone here doesn't have any appeal instead it's only a distraction.

"Exposed" could have had a surreal depth for narrative, yet it's a just a confusing mess that barely has any charm and even that small spark is muddle with messy production.

There is a long story line that I found difficult to follow due to lack of interested. It's watchable but that's about it. More of a background noise type movie.

This is a movie that resembles a puzzle, in the sense that it has pieces that initially seem unrelated but in the end everything falls in place and you get the whole picture that it probably eluded you at the beginning.

The problem is that you don't know (or at least suspect) from the start that is such a movie, so for the most part you will feel cheated or at least disappointed.

Exposed had initially a different name which might be more suitable: "Daughter of God". Also the studio thought that they bought a police/crime/thriller starring Keanu Reeves. Don't be fooled, this not the case. The movie is far from a regular police drama.

Ana de Armas who starred with Reeves in the movie Knock-Knock gives a satisfying performance, but because of the somehow confusing premise, you might miss it. This time Keanu Reeves fails to give a good performance and in some scenes (like with Christopher McDonald who plays his Lieutenant) you might even notice him ...smirking despite the seriousness of the scene. Mira Sorvino is also in this and she is OK in a not-so-demanding role though.

Overall: This is not a poilice/crime/thriller. It is more like a psychological drama and I advise you to start thinking from the beginning about what is going on. Also stay with it, until the end, where all the pieces of the puzzle come together. Then you will see that it was a satisfying movie after all.

"Exposed" is flawed, but has interesting elements. The film was originally titled "Daughter of God," directed by first-time director Gee Malik Linton. The original production was reportedly surreal, very political and multi-cultural. But financing fell through and the producers turned to Lionsgate, who invested in what they thought was a thriller centered on Keanu Reeve's character. The studio didn't feel the original film held broad audience appeal and re-cut it to conform to the film they thought they had invested in. Subsequently, Linton disavowed the film and sued to have his name removed from his only theatrical credit.

The final result reflects the production's uneven genesis. There are two story lines, one in Spanish with subtitles and another in English, which interweave and ultimately merge. Two other story lines seem a bit disjointed and incomplete, presumably due to wholesale cuts.

The story lines share a common theme concerning reluctance to pursue the truth for fear of the consequences. One character was severely traumatized by a childhood experience. Current events conspire to push this character over the edge, compelling a response to the inner turmoil. Another character seeks to uncover the truth about a friend who was not the person he thought and who had secrets he would rather not have learned. There are also a few surrealistic events that don't make much sense, but may have made more sense in the original version. And an individual's death leads to unexpected consequences.

The underlying whodunit is intriguing with some satisfying twists. The truncated subplots provide ample red herrings, although they aren't entirely satisfying. If the film had been shot as detective story, the writer and director would have taken markedly different approaches. What we have is a bit of a hodgepodge that affords glimpses of the story that it might have been. If the director and writer had concentrated on the mystery rather than the social commentary, they would have had a much better film. Having not seen the original film, I cannot comment on how effective it was as a social commentary, although it reportedly received generally favorable reviews from the preview audiences.