Exposed

A woman leaves a nightclub and, over the objections of her brother-in-law, insists on taking the subway home alone. On the train platform she witnesses an incredible event: an overly well-dressed man with a decidedly albino cast to his features walks on air and levitates above the subway track, peering down the tunnel to see if the train is arriving. He turns, walks back to the platform, and smiles at the woman.

The next day, a crooked police officer is found dead in the same subway station, and one by one, all the associates of the woman disappear or are murdered. She herself begins to witness surreal visions which increase in frequency when she befriends a small girl she suspects to be a victim of sexual abuse.

This movie had the makings of an intriguing plot, as the story expands and we learn more about the various characters and how they are, or may be, related. Unfortunately, the makings of a plot do not equal a plot itself, and this is never more so the case than when the studio edits the film to try to create suspense and mystery that should have been inherent in the original screenplay. The endless flashbacks, vision sequences, and out-of-chronology scenes add nothing to the film but confusion and, oddly enough, tedium. They take a better-than-average premise and turn it into a mess of a movie, saved primarily by the few nuggets of genuine creativity in the plot and the looks and acting of Ana de Armas and the cast who portray her family members.

I gave this film 6 stars, solely because I felt the current consensus of 4.2 is absurdly low. A realistic rating would be in the 5.2 to 5.5 range, in my opinion. As the film is only 90 minutes, you won't waste much time watching it if you happen to disagree.

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.

No it's not without it's flaws but overall I didn't feel like it was a waste of time watching it and I did think it succeeded on most parts.

I've heard people talk about this movie as very weird and not understanding what it was about but I thought they did very well at wrapping lose ends together in the end and explaining the "weird" elements, even though you kind of have to tie the points together yourself.

Maybe some people simply forgot to put the subtitles on and was lost because of that (40% of it is in Spanish).

And the acting was good overall with Ana De Armas and Keanu Reeves in the leads, both who also did KNOCK KNOCK together, they get to showcase a little more acting range here though. Rapper Big Daddy Kane has a fairly big supporting role as a crimeboss and he's not too bad either.

It should be noted though that there might be a director's cut coming out at some point because the studio decided that in order to sell it as a Keanu Reeves vehicle (who was only originally meant to be a supporting role) remove chunks of Ana De Armas and the Latino family's scenes and make it more thriller based where as the original intent was always drama.

It still has plenty of that and I still think it works but I can imagine that the DC might be better (and more of a crowd pleaser).

But it made the director so angry at the studio that he asked to have him credited under a pseudonym.

Should also be noted though I suppose that sometimes the director doesn't know best in these cases either, for instance Tony Kaye had infamous fights with Edward Norton regarding the cut of American HISTORY X and that still turned out to be pretty good (not comparing the 2 quality-wise though just making a point).

Now I should be noted to just shut up and let you decide if you want to watch it or not.

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!