MT-15087

Just the other day I stumbled upon an animated short called "Sebastian's Voodoo". It runs about 4 minutes with closing credits and was made by a sophomore student on a shoestring budget. It has it all – story, characters, visuals, drama, climax, finale, meaning. Now you need to hear it again – it's under 5 minutes.

I'd have thought that the stuff that runs one and a half hour, features Keanu Reeves and Renee Zellweger (I … guess) and cost at least several millions should be able to offer at least something along those lines, shouldn't it? I mean if it is not by design in the same category as, say, "Mechanic: Resurrection" – that is not a piece of totally senseless action entertainment which does not even pretend for a second to be anything more than that? Unfortunately, it's not the case here.

It's obviously not a movie one would want to write a dissertation about, so let's be brief. Good news first. The story is semi-OK with a couple of more or less legitimate twists. After two decades of preparation Keanu Reeves delivers something that remotely qualifies as acting (at any rate his lawyer here is perceptibly less wooden than in "The Devil's Advocate" and the remnants of his trademark acting quality are somewhat justified in the context of the plot). That's it.

Now, would it be good enough? It's not that anybody asked for my opinion, but as far as I'm concerned – not quite. What would be the justification of a multi-million project with major stars if at the end of the day the outcome feels, as one reviewer pointed out, like a TV show episode? Except for paychecks for all parties involved?

The truth is that the movie feebly hints at some points but they are dropped halfway and ultimately not really made. My guess would be that it might have been different in the script but changed during the production – it would explain why one of the main characters suddenly becomes kind of 'unnecessary'. It is as if the movie was afraid of getting too poignant and chooses to play it safely.

The direction is equally mediocre and all about 'been there done that' (repeatedly) thing. It does not even hint at any original vision. No, that's not true. At some point you can have a glimpse of Renee Zellweger's (still guessing … but definitely not a body double's) naked posterior. Despite the fact that it's not as ample as it used to be, this revelation is commendable. And it's never been done before. But again – that's it.

Then again, since patent mediocrity has always been the main specialty of mainstream Hollywood, this all is not surprising. What is, however, is why people like Keanu settle for it time and time and time again. With his ability as a performer mentioned he is hardly in a position to be picky. However, with his financial ability he certainly is.

Why not to produce meaningful mid-/low-budget projects and finance them with his own money to retain total creative control while minding their commercial potential as well? Reportedly Keanu tried something of the sort recently. But, apparently due to a half-measures approach implemented, wound up with "Exposed" after "Daughter of God" was gang raped by Lionsgate executives.

Well, Neo, everybody falls the first time. Get a decent crew of inventive dudes who actually have something to say and try again. Stir this morass a little. Who, if not you? Because even "Exposed" has more meaning, real drama as well as artistic and, ultimately, overall value to it than "The Whole Truth".

The genre of the movie is described as a drama/thriller. In fact, the only thrilling thing about it would be having to decide what's more dubious here – the writing or directing. Or what's less interesting about the lead – his face or his acting. The only remotely redeeming quality of this movie in terms of its performances is the participation of those two gentlemen you can see on the poster in the background. They at least somewhat deliver – a minor feat given the material that they're given. So, obviously, the material itself has none. And the only real mystery you may need to unravel is why three men responsible for a handful of mediocre horrors conspired this time to produce a horribly mediocre thriller which literally contains nothing. If you want a comparatively decent drama involving corrupt corporations and providing some social commentary - watch "The Constant Gardener". If you want a stylish "corporate thriller" subterraneanly reflecting upon human nature - watch "Demonlover". This one is hardly any good for anything. However, there is still something really dramatic about it – it's realizing that this kind of stuff is all Hollywood has to offer to the great ones like Pacino today.

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!