Exposed (1983) User Reviews (20)

Ambitious film misses the mark, yet.....

[rosscinema · 5/10 · 28 December 2004]

Like some of the others that have commented on this film I first watched this about 20 years ago and have seen it a few more times since then and I'm not sure what it is about this but it's definitely an intriguing mess. Story is about a Wisconsin girl named Elizabeth Carlson (Nastassja Kinski) who leaves college and heads to New York City where after getting a job as a waitress is discovered by a fashion agent who makes her into a very successful model.

*****SPOILER ALERT***** While this is all going on she notices a strange man following her (Rudolf Nureyev) and eventually has to confront him and learns that his name is Daniel Jelline and he wants to kill a terrorist. They engage in a romance and she follows him to Paris but gets upset when she discovers that he used her to try and get closer to Rivas (Harvey Keitel) who's the terrorist and plotting his next act of destruction. Elizabeth notices a woman from New York that was watching her and recognizes her as one of the members of Rivas gang and they strike up a conversation which results in her getting the opportunity to meet him. After Rivas lets her go she immediately goes to get Daniel and this leads to a violent and bloody conclusion.

This was the third film that James Toback had written and directed and he was still riding the critical praise of his first film "Fingers" but he seemed to bite off more than he could chew with this story. First off, nobody believed Kinski was a girl from the Midwest and she never appeared at home until she arrived in Paris. Keitel is woefully miscast as a terrorist and after multiple viewings of this film I was never sure if he was supposed to be a Parisian or something else. I've heard everyone describe Nureyev's performance as wooden and stiff but with his dark eyes I always compared him to Dracula and every time he spoke he would either speak in metaphors or recite something poetically. But with all that, this film has always been something of a curiosity and for some reason I cannot get myself to admit that this is a bad film. There's something alluring and intriguing about the story and I think it has to do with the casting of Kinski who has often been described as a force to reckon with. At one point Kinski does a dance by herself and with her unique screen presence one can't help but be absorbed by her character. Toback's script and film has such high aspirations and is so ambitious that for most of us it commands some sort of attention. Many future viewers will simply reject this after one viewing and not think twice about it but for those of us who watched Kinski and Toback rise to they're abilities in the early 80's this clumsy film has always been something of a curiosity.

Nastassia Kinski: Super Model/Terrorist Hunter

[JasparLamarCrabb · 4/10 · 15 March 2009]

Probably the only movie ever made about a terrorist hunting super-model, James Toback's thriller is not particularly good. It's a snail-paced film featuring Nastassia Kinski as a model recruited by Rudolf Nureyev to kill Harvey Keitel. Kinski is pretty good and looks striking and Nureyev is suitably mysterious. Unfortunately Toback's script suffers from a real case of inertia, the plot doesn't so much unfold as it oozes. Kinski's character is fuzzy and Keitel, who shows up near the end of the film, is really given nothing to do. There is some terrific, very moody photography by Henri Decaë and the film does work as a travelogue of sort of the more seedy parts of Paris. Toback makes an un-billed appearance as Kinski's brusque college professor. Pierre Clémenti plays one of his typically creepy roles as one of Keitel's less trustworthy confidants.

My brief review of the film

[sol- · 4/10 · 5 November 2005]

Nastassja Kinski gives off an incredibly natural performance in this otherwise quite forgetful film. The plot is strange, convoluted and executed in a roundabout fashion, with many events that just seem randomly shoved together. It is really a mess on the writing front, with little, if any, structure to the screenplay. It is also filled with dislikeable small supporting characters that add nothing to the tale, and towards the end it becomes awfully weak. Even so, there is something really great about Kinski's acting. It never feels forced or unnatural. It is just about worth watching the film just for her, even though it is not terribly well made, nor particularly amusing.

Kinski: perfect! The film: a mess

[bronty · 12 August 2004]

The early 80's seemed to be a ripe time for espionage-themed films and, taken as a whole, is probably somewhere in the middle in terms of quality (goodness knows there were worse!). However, what makes it worth seeing are two things: its European locales (all in monochromatic greys and browns) and, first and foremost, the astonishing and eye-achingly beautiful Kinski, in what may well be her ripest, fiercest, most raw performance captured on film. What surrounds her, unfortunately, is either standard or downright embarassing: wooden supporting performances (particularly Nureyev, who looks singularly uneasy and clodding, ironic for someone who spent a lifetime being praised for his graceful moves), an often senseless plot, and direction that veers from shameful to confused, none of which is helped by sometimes-spastic editing. And yet...there is Kinski, breathing life into this dull affair in spite of itself, wiping everyone else from the screen and the audience's eyes and minds. Here, she is a force to be reckoned with, radiating an intriguing blend of natural awkwardness and just-enough confidence: in essence, she is 100% REAL. There isn't a single false moment delivered by her, as a young woman who falls into the world of both modeling and espionage, giving the film as a whole the unmistakable air of 'what-could-have-been'. If this movie had a tenth of what she provides, it would still rate, despite being dated, as a modern-day classic. As it is, it IS, whatever its many, many flaws, worth seeing (for it's often-silly early-80's fashions, as a time machine, those aforementioned locales) but she is the main reason why. She is brilliant.

One swallow does not make a summer

[bbhlthph · 1/10 · 21 November 2004]

The old saying "One swallow does not make a summer" is particularly apt when discussing this film. There is a soaring performance by Natassja Kinski but other cast members, including Rudolph Nureyev, never get off the ground and remain wallowing in mud. Worst of all the director James Toback is so deep in the mire that he could not even produce a story which the average moviegoer could easily follow. Natassja plays the part of a fashion model who appears to have received so much publicity that she has attracted the attention of undesirable characters, which is perhaps a good basis for a drama. But from this point things go rapidly downhill as it becomes increasingly difficult to get any idea of what is supposed to be going on.

For a users rating, one outstanding performance certainly deserves one point; but it is hard to think of any justification for giving this film an additional one, so I will rate it at 1 out of 10 - sorry Natassja, you deserved better.

Colossal... (waste of talent, time and money, that is)

[Kansas-5 · 1/10 · 30 March 2000]

This is a colossal waste of the talent of actors like Keitel, Nastassja Kinski, Carl Lee and Russo. The "revolutionaries" are portrayed as birdbrained automatons. The dialogue is embarrassing. Nureyev is positively wooden. Kinski does a ridiculous dance, made choppy by pathetic editing. If memory serves, the direction was so bad that during a silly car chase the pursued and pursuers are actually passed by a Parisian taxi in a traffic circle. That has to be a metaphor for the entire travesty. The movie would be gauged as sophomoric compared to the worst efforts of high school film classes.

Pointless Junk

[LeaBlacks_Balls · 1/10 · 21 February 2010]

Every once in a while, you see a movie so dull and so stupid, you have to wonder if drugs were somehow involved in making the film. 'Exposed' is one of those films.

The plot of this film doesn't unravel, it oozes like molasses in January. Nastassja Kinski plays a Wisconsin farm girl named Elizabeth who leaves home and runs away to New York. After being discovered by a fashion photographer (McShane) she is whisked away into the glamorous world of fashion. Soon she's in Europe, and is recruited by a mysterious violin player (the awful corpse-like Rudolf Nureyev) to infiltrate a terrorist organization and kill it's leader. The leader is played by Harvey Keitel, who is given next to nothing to do.

The only good scene is at the very beginning when two terrorist babes blow up a Parisian restaurant. But it all goes downhill from there. In more capable hands and with a better cast, this film could have been good. But everything is a mess. The script is convoluted and boring, the acting is atrocious, the direction is flat, there is no suspense, and no characters that seem even human.

Oddly, so many people seem to praise Nastassja Kinski as a great actress. I've just never seen it. In every film I've seen her in she just seems vacant and bored, but this is Kinski at her worst, no doubt.

Seven stars just for Nastassja

[prospectpt · 7/10 · 12 February 2006]

Yeah, yeah...who could not find fault with this implausible menagerie of models & Marxists? Here, even the most inept of film-schoolers could find a surplus of shortfalls, for which to offer their trite insight. What's blatantly apparent with this film is...the script seems never to have transcended the first-draft stage...the characters all seem either to be on psychotropic drugs, or to be in need of psychotherapeutic ones...and the director seems to have had his mind on other things – perhaps how to act in his small but completely forgettable part.

However, for some of us, the challenge is to discover the good points of 'critical failures', such as "Exposed", and as everyone seems to be somewhat more then vaguely aware, what's most redeeming about this film is, in a word, "NASTASSJAKINSKI"! When she is before the camera, all the problems behind it seem insignificant.

Cheers, J.B. - Prospect Point Productions, Inc.

Silly story, silly direction = silly film

[challenger86 · 1/10 · 18 July 2005]

When you focus on the aspect "direction", this movie seems to be one of the worst you can watch. The script, the direction, it's a whole mess. A silly story, scenes which are too long... The only positive aspect about this movie is Natassia Kinski.

Mr. Toback (adequate name) probably has some influent friends, or is somebody's cousin or something.

In this film, I always had the impression, that Mr Toback thinks that terrorism is the worst threat that exists for humanity. More important aspects, like corruption, hunger, inequality, aren't even mentioned. Forget this trash! I had to watch several good movies to start forgetting this crap.

Exposed (1983) - A Review

[jonathanruano · 7/10 · 19 March 2016]

"Exposed" has to be one of the most unusual, different, and unpredictable films I have ever seen. Many of the reviews on IMDb fault this film for having an incoherent plot. I actually believe that this criticism is unjustified, since writer-director James Toback is really trying to make a very ambitious film on the theme of the western world "breaking down" morally, politically, economically, and every other way. Toback, playing a professor in this picture, even makes this point rather banally to a classroom filled with indifferent students. The film then pursues this theme in a very fresh and original way by exploring the turbulent life of Elizabeth Carlson, who is played brilliantly here by the German actress Nastassja Kinski. The beginning of the film shows a terrorist attack and Elizabeth looking indifferently at her literature professor in that order, begging the question of how these two scenes are related. Then over the course of a series of extraordinary (but nonetheless plausible) plot twists, we learn the answer to this question. The end of the film shows Elizabeth gazing over her dying lover in the streets of Paris as the western world, in a metaphorical sense, collapses all around her.

Aside from the mostly interesting plot, the strength of the film lies in Natassija Kinski's performance as Elizabeth. She plays this character so brilliantly that we can almost overlook those moments in the film where she delivers poor lines. Rudolf Nureyev's performance as the enigmatic violinist David Jelline is not as good, but he is still very interesting to watch all the same. Now the film is not without its weaknesses. I found the acting of most of the supporting cast to be amateurish and dull, including Toback's brief performance as the literature professor. Moreover, "Exposed" starts out a bit too slowly in the beginning before picking up tempo and becoming more interesting. Yet there were enough unexpected plot developments (including a "violin seduction" that has to be seen to be believed), classical music, and interesting characters to keep me interested right up to the end.

Meter on wrong setting

[tomsview · 5/10 · 17 July 2013]

When I picked this movie out of the sale bin I wasn't really expecting an undiscovered gem, but what a fascinating cast.

Like a number of other reviewers, possibly also male, the fact that it starred Nastassja Kinski was almost enough reason to buy it. However it also starred Rudolf Nureyev and that sounded interesting. Also on board were Harvey Keitel and Ian McShane, while further down the cast list was Aussie, Ron Randell in his last movie, and even Bibi Andersson of Ingar Bergman fame. "Exposed" was definitely worth risking $4.99.

Of course, buying movies just for the stars is as dangerous as buying them just for the special effects – usually it's like a snack full of empty calories – for proper nourishment; a movie needs a good story. Not that "Exposed" doesn't have a story, it actually has too much story, and it's a pretty whacked one.

It's full of ideas that miss the mark, and it's hard to follow. I had to rewind the movie more than once to come up with even a brief summary.

Elizabeth Carlson, played by Nastassja Kinski, leaves a Mid-Western college where she has been having an unhappy affair with one of her professors, Leo Boscovitch, an unsympathetic character played rather flatly by James Toback who also wrote and directed the film.

Arriving in New York, Elizabeth is discovered by fashion photographer, Greg Miller played by Ian McShane – he sees a great future for that sultry look. She becomes a famous model, and attracts the attention of Daniel Jelline, Rudolf Nureyev's character, a man committed to hunting down a deadly terrorist named Rivas. Daniel also happens to be a world-renowned concert violinist.

After following Daniel to Paris, she finds that he has set her up as a lure for Rivas, played by Harvey Keitel. Rivas is obsessed with her from photographs in magazines – thankfully he hasn't created a 'mad wall' with the photos in the best tradition of movie psychos. Elizabeth is in love with Daniel and goes along with his plan. Rivas gets to spout his terrorist philosophy before events come to a head with a shootout on the banks of the Seine.

In the end, it's too contrived and too talky; the terrorists may as well have been vampires for all the sense it makes.

There is one long scene with Nureyev and Kinski that eventually leads to modest exposure in the bedroom. It's a chance to compare them. According to IMDb he was 1.72m tall and she was 1.69m tall, although in the movie they look about the same height – it could be a case for "Celebrity Heights". He was older, but they were almost a male and female version of the same look – killer cheekbones, smouldering sensuality, hooded eyelids, great lips, a touch of petulance plus accents. They both had lithe bodies and feline grace – after all, the year before she was a sexy cat-person in the otherwise deadly remake of "Cat People".

Both performers are low-key. She is good; he is bad – his performance is almost a throwback to silent cinema, maybe he never got over playing Valentino. Anyway, Nureyev will hardly be remembered for his acting.

Toback, who had a self-confessed gambling addiction in real life, takes chances with his movies. When he gets it right, such as the screenplay for "The Gambler", he creates a movie that stays with you. Unfortunately "Exposed" is one that doesn't.

Kinski breaks the barrier

[vic-45 · 8/10 · 18 March 1999]

There are moments in this film that are so amazing to me. It is hard to describe in words what occurs in this film that I find so striking.

Kinski is sheer brilliance. It is not that she delivers a phenomenal performance but that she seduces the camera without any ego. I have never seen this done before by another actress in the same sense. It is though we were watching a documentary.

The film is an awful mess but at the same time I found it fascinating. The dance Kinski does in her unfurnished apartment has a strong sense of an individual void of the conformity of life. She dances to the beat of her own drum.

There is another scene where Kinski gets out of a cab and falls in the street. She gets up and runs away with a limp in her step. Why I found that intriguing I cannot say. It seemed awkward in an awkward film.

I like it for its foolishness and its attempt of making the world of fashion and terrorism seem romantic.

Kinski breaks the barrier between audience and screen as the magazine Variety stated. It was such a perfect description of her performance. Roger Ebert offers an excellent review on this film and I highly agree with it.

Check it out sometime and see a star at work.

Subtle Low key thriller -- all shots count

[djderka · 7/10 · 26 January 2012]

All shots count - (see end paragraph)

A hot blonde babe blows up a Parisian bistro in the very beginning of the movie. Seems a terrorist cell is in operation with models as the fuse. And the cell is run by Harvey Keitel.

A great line in the movie is when Harvey tells Nastassja that the "revolution" is about fine cigars, a room in the Hilton, a nice car and women. Huh?

Exposed has a slow and steady pace with plenty of culture in dance and music. Marxism and models were a very chic item in Europe in the 70's and 80's. Especially in Italy.

One important unrecognized "actor" is the professor at the beginning of the film that makes a very awkward "awwwwkard" pass at Nastassja in the beginning. The "professor" is James Toback, the director and he is uncredited. Henceforth, Nastassja flees to Europe.

I enjoyed this film despite some shortcomings and criticism. A great dancer(Nureyev), and hot actress (Kinski), hot models, and intrigue and culture...give it a chance. Bibi Andersson appears in a nice red leather pencil skirt in a bookstore encounter with Emily (Nastassja).

This is perhaps the only movie that doesn't waste ammo and everyone is a marksman. Especially in the ending shoot out. You know the bullets are a flyn' everywhere in most movies, with the heroes and villains taking forever to hit their target. But here there is not one miss. And they are artists and models for goodness sake. These folks are economical and accurate shooters for sure.

Doesn't convince much but entertains a lot

[Rodrigo_Amaro · 8/10 · 26 March 2013]

"Exposed" is one of those stories that take quite a long time to finally get where it needs, makes more turns than twists but when it gets to its point it rushes things when it shouldn't. It develops too much from one character but hides too much all presenting the others which can be viewed as strange and difficulting in accepting everything that is about to be presented.

Here we follow in detail the stardom of Elizabeth (Nastassja Kinski) a young woman who abandons her studies and goes to New York to try make a living, fails again and again until she gets discovered by a photographer (Ian McShane) who'll make of her a super-model just like that. Barely this girl could predict she was going to meet a strange man (Rudolf Nureyev) who would make her life turn upside down with his offer to help him catch a terrorist (Harvey Keitel) and his group who spreads the terror in Europe. The connection between both isn't worth mentioning but one can say that it doesn't satisfy much, and there's something missing here, it's not very clear if Elizabeth by joining this man would benefit in any way, probably she's only doing this because they share something special.

If put aside the logic and that great notion of what makes great movies great, "Exposed" can only be one thing: fun to watch. Why? It's a glamorous, exciting and a little thrilling multi-genre piece that knows how to sell beauty, pleasure, the joys of high-life, the excitement of the fashion world (which it's rare to be seen both in movies and in life) and throws in the middle a strange view of current wave of terrorism of the 1980's with idealists fighting against imperialism yet being part of it or wanting the same things (as Keitel's character makes perfectly clear about the things he fights for). And gotta acknowledge the way director James Toback films and presents the whole thing, a great sense of style - the scenes in Paris are the most fascinating, the ones in New York not so much - sensual, provocative, and there's even bits of good dialogues. High points: the opening scene ending with a terrorist attack (heart goes to mouth in that part); the violin scene, one of the most erotic moments in film history with the clothes on; and Elizabeth joining the group. The ending was too rushed, could be more inventive, riskier and more dangerous (what happened to the bombs?).

Most reviews here states "Exposed" as being a mess. I wonder if people were really watching the movie, or maybe they were all just dazzled with Kinski's beauty that they got lost somewhere and couldn't keep going right. The story is not messy at all, it's quite simple to follow. What upsets the most in this is the giant plot hole featured in it, which was the main reason for the story to ties its connections. The agent played by Nureyev pretends to use Elizabeth as a bait to attract the terrorists, since one of the members was attracted to her during a photo session in Paris. I don't remember seeing him or any of his partners in the photo shoot or any kind of mention that he was there so how could one make such idea and use in his favor? They are not there.

Everything might be halfway or under-developed but the main attribute of "Exposed" isn't and that is Kinski's presence. It's the perfect vehicle to know her best, to explore her grace and beauty in all glory. But don't expect the same level of acting she had in the great "Paris Texas". She's fine in this, made to be desired and admired. The other cast members are there for the name sake and that's that: Nureyev is completely wooden but there's something about him that makes of his a good choice for the role (just hated his accent, difficult to hear at times); Keitel plays a good sinister role but we create so much anticipation over his character that disappoints when he's there for less than half an hour; the director himself chose to play the despicable teacher, Elizabeth's ex-boyfriend, giving himself a great entrance with a class about Goethe and Werther (I agree with his statement on it) but leaves the story being a jerk; and there's small and unsatisfying roles to names like Bibi Andersson, James Russo and Pierre Clementi as the sassy terrorist member who is about to betray the group.

We're not talking about an award winning picture or a noble effort in presenting marvelous ideas, we're talking about a film with the high purpose of entertaining and one must recognize that this never leaves you bored. Under-appreciated and for the wrong reasons, if at least some were paying any form of attention. 8/10.

Nastassja blows away everything on the screen

[fookoo · 8/10 · 23 August 2003]

Taken as an historical perspective of Nastassja Kinski, this is a relatively young Nastassja who totally dominates the screen. As the movie proceeds, it becomes more and more apparent that Nastassja has something called screen presence, meaning that whenever she is on screen there is the promise of something electric occurring that is extraordinary. Today, this movie may appear to be wooden and dated, especially with the performance or lack of performance of Rudolph Nureyev who is absolutely obliterated by Nastassja. The movie on its own cannot be taken seriously, but it maybe viewed as a celebration of Nastassja Kinski.

Nastassja Kinski seduces the camera without ego. She's the film.

[victor7754 · 10/10 · 15 August 2004]

Exposed showcases Nastassja Kinski's enigmatic beauty. She is beauty without ego. A rare trait in this day and age of vanity ridden films. Her presence is most rewarding in a rather awkward film. James Toback directed the film to showcase Kinski and expected her to become a superstar after it's release. This did not happen.

Kinski is a phenomenon on screen and is a perfect example of star presence. She did it in Polanksi's handsome Tess, Wender's, Paris Texas, and Coppola's One From The Heart. However, it is Toback's Exposed that captures her primitive nature at its core. Her exotic beauty combined with an esoteric knowledge hidden behind those dark eyes is intimidating and hypnotic. It was if Director Toback said to Kinski: " Just be yourself." It is unique to witness how this actress can be captured so unattractive then in the right light become the most radiant unusual striking figure of defined beauty. This is what the famous directors who seduced her saw in her.

There is something very sexy about the film as Kinski gets transformed from farm girl to high fashion model. Beauty and the beast unfold as idealism and terrorism seduce young sexy women to act out their rebel idealistic cause in a Capitalistic world. It is understandable why two Romantic Men would pursue such a cover girl as Kinski. She is exquisite at times and striking to the senses. She plays a free spirit very well, a Goddess to the nymph.

The film has some cool 60's rock interwoven in the story, :"Locomotion" and "La Bamba" play as Kinski discovers her new world. The Shoop Shoop Song by Betty Everett has Kinski dancing alone to the spirits of desire.

Rudolph Nureyev has a perverse sexiness that somehow balances Kinski's exotic nature. He plays her like a violin to foul a terrorist who killed his father. There is a scene where they look like vampires as pretense surrounds Published photos in a gallery showcasing Kinski. Shame on Toback for not drawing us nearer or shame on the photographer for allowing pettiness not to allow the camera to explore the photos. It was a pivotal moment in the film to prove to the audience why this actress was the "one."

Toback keeps the viewer away at times from the action. It was as if he could only do one take.

Exposed is alluring like it's star. Don't even pay attention to the world that surrounds Kinski. Just watch her. She has been Exposed.

Weak, unrealistic, confused...

[Sigmund-3 · 9 December 1998]

... it really bothered me. The direction is flat and anonymous, the script is messy, the dialogues are too long and unlikely, the rhythm recalls me a funeral, and the plot itself is meaningless. The only good things in this movie are N. Kinski and a gloomy winter Paris. I rate it * (out of 6).

Cool midnight Nastassja movie

[Xanadu-2 · 10/10 · 21 September 2000]

This is a a very underrated film with many qualities. Somehow the parts don´t really add up but it´s still worth watching.

The camera can´t get enough of Nastassja Kinski which is understandable since she is gorgeous. The films captures some of her feminine mystique and one can let oneself be seduced. The main weakness of the film is that it´s fragmented with parts that barely have anything holding them together except ms. Kinski.

First she´s a midwestern farmgirl, then she goes to the BIG CITY and works as a waitress until -VOILA!- she´s discovered as a model! (which really is not at all unlikely as she is GORGEOUS). Then, she meets a mysterious man (European natch), follows him to France and gets involved with a terrorist group plotting to kill several people.

But all this is very entertaining in a loose way with fine low-key performances from everyone. Nastassja is very good as the curious, open and vulnerable girl.

So it´s the directors folly, but it´s very interesting to see the 80´s again, people like Nureyev, Harvey Kietel and Bibi Andersson, a terrorist groups´ way of thinking from the inside, and the looseness of the film is rather appealing if one can give reality a rest. I liked it.

best Kinski movie ever!!!

[douglasekblade · 10/10 · 17 June 2001]

Looking back on this movie, I really think this was the most realistic of all the political movies Kinski has made. Paris is the home of internation terrorism. And I think another look at Kinskis' choice in making this will give her fans a better understanding of her artistic makeup.

An often strange movie

[Wizard-8 · 6 January 2015]

"Exposed" is one of the oddest movies I have seen for a long time. It's so strange at times, it is hard to believe that a major Hollywood studio decided to bankroll and release it. It is easier to believe the reports that it was a box office flop. I wouldn't really call it a bad movie, because there are some good things here and there. The photography is very good, with rich colors and conveying the feeling of coldness when it's winter. The musical score by Georges Delerue is also nice, with also a few pleasant golden oldies thrown in here and there. And the acting is generally good. However, the story is a mess. The movie simply cannot make its mind up as to what it's about. It starts off as a look at a college student getting over a relationship with one of her professors, then moves to becoming a tale about a woman who becomes a heavily in demand professional model (overnight!), then moves to a relationship budding between the movie's heroine and someone somewhat older, then concludes by becoming a thriller about finding and terminating a terrorist! I know that what I just wrote may make the movie sound like something so-bad-it's-good for some bad movie fans, but they will probably find it the way I did - a mess, yes, but a slow moving mess that's not that much fun with any angle you may approach it with. It's not a surprise that the movie today is more or less forgotten.