Exposed (III) (2016) User Reviews (254)

Betrayed by its own fragmented narrative

[quincytheodore · 3/10 · 23 January 2016]

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.

Exposed

[henry8-3 · 3/10 · 9 April 2022]

2 stories here. Firstly, Reeves plays a cop investigating the killing of his corrupt partner and secondly De Armas is a deeply religious woman living with her husband's close knit Dominican family whilst awaiting his return from serving in Iraq. At the beginning of the film, waiting for a train she has the first of several bizarre visions.

Whilst there are one or two points of interest here and De Armas is as good as ever, this is a directionless mess of a film which simply makes no sense whatsoever. Add to this that it is all pretty boring and that at the end it just stops, resolving nothing and you have the makings of a truly dire production.

Of interest however, there is some controversy around this film. The producers, Lionsgate, were apparently expecting a standard Keanu Reeves cop thriller (presumably they decided not to read the script) and when they saw the original film, called 'Daughter of God', they had a seizure and recut the thing into the shambles we have today as 'Exposed'.

I have not seen 'Daughter of God', but by all accounts it is a flawed, but fairly coherent story of a woman and her beliefs with the cop element being a key but secondary element of the story. I do not doubt that there are films out there that producers have restored to masterpieces and which went on to make box office gold, this though seems to be another classic tale of producers misunderstanding what they were getting / had and just turned what they had into total rubbish. What a waste, because when you analyse the nonsense you've seen, you can detect sparks of what it might have been.

Got to say nay on this one.

[subxerogravity · 4/10 · 25 January 2016]

So as I was about to post this review, I noticed on the trivia page notes on exactly what went wrong with this film, cause something did go terribly wrong on this one, terribly wrong.

The movie felt like one or two different movies, intertwined together really badly. The whole thing was all over the place with no real focus.

It's really sad because the acting in the movie was really good and I love how the filmmakers placed the movie in the Inwood section of Manhattan. I recognize the area and it made the movie feel so real. Like with the characters going naturally back and forth from Spanish to English, it fells like Dominican New York. Not only that, but the cinematography and the sound design really helps to put you right there on the streets. From the sounds of the buses and cars going by to parts where it was cloudy and raining. I really felt I was on those streets and not in a theater.

Plus Big Daddy Kane makes a rare acting appearance. How can this movie not be solid gold?

Well apparently it was not enough for the studios to have Keenu Reeves on the poster to sell tickets, they had to re-edit the movie to make sure he was more the star of the pic, and this puts everything off, because you still realize that Reeves' role as a detective trying to solve his crooked partner's murder is a small piece of a movie about a a young devoted catholic living with her husband's family while he's overseas, trying to wrap her head around deeply distributing issues that are triggered by her own connection to the this cop's murder.

So I herd that there is a director's cut of the movie. If that cut every comes to light, I would want to see what the filmmaker really was trying to do, but do not waste your time seeing this cut.

See it until the End, before you decide if it is good or bad...

[Dr_Sagan · 24 January 2016]

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.

Horrible Movie...but for good reason..

[nickolasyiannios · 1/10 · 11 February 2016]

I'm not the type to ever leave a review on anything, unless its in a positive context, but i felt the need since there wasn't a way for me to directly respond to some of the reviews that i read. This movie is bad! Really really terrible! There is no mysterious deeper meaning, like I've been reading.

Its actually embarrassing that there are people on here who think they are some how so above every one else, so special, that they took this movie for some artistic genius, that went over all our heads. Lions Gate films gutted and re-edited this movie to focus around Keanu, when the movie wasn't supposed to.

The actual director of this movie felt so strongly about the fact that it became a piece of crap, that he took his name off the movie completely.

So instead of trying to be the next Roger Ebert, or trying to look for a deeper meaning in a movie that doesn't have any, just stop, don't, because you're misleading people into wasting 2 hours of their lives.

Horrible Movie

[zubinster · 1/10 · 22 January 2016]

Just awful!

This is not one movie. But two entirely separate movies. One is in Spanish (with English subtitles) about a Latina woman having visions and struggling with her Latin family's heritage. The other is about Keanu sleepwalking as part of solving his partner's murder. For a long time the movie goes back and forth between these two stories without the slightest connection. Then suddenly the stories are forced to merge.

Horrible acting. Bad writing. Bad, bad direction. Everything is lousy in this film.

Movies like this one should be a must-see in all film schools. "Exposed" should serve as an example of how many people it takes to make a movie and yet it can turn out this badly.

One can see by the opening credits that there must have been six production and financing companies involved. It is inconceivable that the producers, financiers and others from those companies just put out the money, saw this movie in progress, or the premiere, and were OK with it.

Simply inconceivable.

Do not believe the "6.3" (from 146 users!!!!) rating of this movie. These are friends of producers or production crew trying to recoup their money. All lies.

Just to give you an example: "Declan Dale" is the name of the director in the credits. But "Declan Dale" is like "Alan Smithee", a name that directors use when they want not to be associated with the film.

Even the Director wants his name off of this piece of junk. That's how bad this movie is!

Incredible

[tboarder-gx · 2/10 · 23 January 2016]

This movie was incredible; incredibly bad.

Never before has someone so cleverly taken two separate stories, and ram them together with the elegance of a head-on car crash.

The overall structure of the film felt like patch-work, moving from one scene to another within a matter of 10-30 seconds. As you absorb each scene, attempting to find some correlation to the previous one, they'll whip it away from you, leaving a bitter taste in your memory that will only grow as scenes pile up. It's like waiting for a surgeon to perform a delicate operation on your loved one, and the local butcher walks through the door with his cleaver. It's painful. I was really hoping there were some subtle or underlying meanings to some of the scenes, but in the end I found myself looking to my wife for comfort and explanation, only to be met with an empty confused stare.

I never did work out what the dog death scene was all about.

It would seem as though key inspiration was drawn from student films and the familiar "patching" of loose ends. If information was missing, throw a 10 second scene to tie it up... no one will notice.

I gave it a chance, hell, I watched the whole thing, and at this point I really wish I'd stuck with my gut instinct in the first 10 minutes to hang up the gloves and just get an extra few hours of sleep.

If you plan to watch this movie, please be prepared for confusion, frustration and disbelief.

Incredible.

Someone owes me 1 hour 42 minutes.

[tony-wigan · 1/10 · 12 February 2016]

I am at a loss to find an adjective to truly describe this movie. So,I'll just go with awful, really awful.

Awful patch work structure. Awful, wooden acting. Awful Direction.

Given all of the awful mentioned above, skillful editing could have saved it, however the clumsy, almost random links left the converging plot lines disjointed and just, yes, awful.

The finance and production companies, all 16 of them, should have simply made a donation to charity rather than pour money into this awful mess. Over all, this awful movie left me feeling older and in need of a shower.

Total disappointment

[vali_all · 2/10 · 30 January 2016]

I have just recovered the password for my IMDb account (which I didn't use to login since some time) to write how bad this movie is and that it was a total waste of time!!

I wish I read the previous reviews before watching this nonsense movie but I've made the mistake of reading only the plot which was quite interesting (but very untrue).

The story is stupid, the acting is bad and the video shots are poor. A lot of things happen with no reason and no connection to the rest of the movie, the story is half in English and half in Spanish but mixed in such a way that it becomes annoying from the beginning of the movie.

Time is precious, don't waste it on this movie!

Surprisingly good

[MadamWarden · 7/10 · 4 January 2019]

Most reviews point to the fragmented plot and separate stories etc. These are crucial to the structure of the film where both leads live in a surreal fantasy world, one more fantastical, and the other a depressed realism.

I felt the ending didn't need the "explanation" the director gave and a simple shot of the family photo would have been enough. We worked out what was fantasy and what was real from that.

That said, it was a poignant portrayal of people dealing with violence and tragedy in different ways. The side plots were intended to divert attention from the main plot and worked well within the overall construct.

Ana de Armas is excellent in her portrayal of the tragic innocent. Keanu is the same wooden character he always is. Sadly.

Overall a well made movie with neat twists and some excellent performances.

Corporate meddling at it's finest

[dragonfire_power_818 · 1/10 · 24 January 2016]

I had no idea what this movie was trying to accomplish. Honestly, I don't. I'm certain it was trying to go for cerebral, but I've seen home movies on flip phones with more coherent plot twists than this. The first hour was nothing but disjunctive cut scenes sporadically placed with no relation or relevance to each other. Most were emotional gotcha's that did nothing to move the plot forward. Someone asked about the dog scene, why stop there? Why did we even bother talking about the cop's kid? Or the hooking up with the dead partner's wife? Or the guy going around killing supposed witnesses? None of that mattered at all in this film. You could have removed all of that and it wouldn't have impacted the story in the slightest. The pieces that were relevant were edited and whittled away because once you sat through an excruciating hour of mind numbing inanity, the ending, which happen to reveal itself around the same time as the plot, was so utterly predictable.

I could not understand how anyone would want to put their name to this drivel. Then when I looked up IMDb I found this gem: "The writer/director fought to have his name legally removed from the movie." Really, you should read the trivia, it's quite telling. Basically this movie should have been 'The Machinist' meets 'Pan's Labyrinth' in regards to telling an intriguing story, but instead Lionsgate decided that garbage with a big name actor stamped on it would somehow salvage yet another overarching reach of stifling creativity.

Definitely strange, but makes perfect sense in the end - that is its beauty

[ian-dodkins · 8/10 · 28 August 2016]

If you're looking for a simple detective movie with Keanu Reeves as the lead, or an action packed adventure, this isn't the film. That's why I loved it. Yes, it is weird, but it's weird because you think it's one story, then it turns out to be another, and then you realise it is actually something completely different. The female really plays the lead role and Keanu is the 'canvas' which takes almost the viewers perspective of initially not understanding what happened. However, the film makes perfect sense and the surreal parts tie into the final conclusion. Don't read any parts with spoilers - the twist is worth it. I'm not a Keanu fan really but his role is ideal here, as in understated detective. Not a film for adolescents, children or action movie fans, but is a film for people that like an interesting story told in a novel way and relates to a woman with a problematic life. I really enjoyed it, though my wife didn't (she thinks i like all weird films) but it is neither slow nor 'art house's rubbish, but simply a compelling story with an interesting end. Try it, there is a good chance you'll find it fascinating and enjoyable, as I did.

Odd Woman Out...I enjoyed the film

[shreeree · 7/10 · 25 January 2016]

I don't know why so many didn't like the film except for the fact I know many don't like subtitles.

The only thing I will say is I would have focus on the one story of the Latin woman since she is the key to the full circle. Throwing in the illusion effects I found distracting and the drug dealers story line too, but I understood the reasoning was because it was two separate stories that collided. It's like some people are born to be victimize all their lives. I'm surprise she turned out as well as she had, however it was probably due to the fact she blocked her childhood out until she was traumatized again.

There is two stories going on here with one common factor, a murdered cop in the subway station. I think if you don't have high expectations as to what you want it to be and appreciate it for what it is you will enjoy it more. If you have any aversion to the strictness of Catholic religion you probably will not enjoy this film because it plays a roll in setting up the story and the use of the illusions which I don't know why these "beings" were chosen to look like they do. If it was suppose to represent something I didn't get it.

I found it very sad because the actress playing the lead is very beautiful with an innocence that is almost surreal and believable. They did great casting.

Confused

[dizwilliams · 1/10 · 31 December 2018]

Did the director not have a copy of the script?

What are the white dudes and why would one ask for Manny?

These and 84 other questions will remain unanswered.

Zero stars would be appropriate

[Silicone54 · 1/10 · 10 August 2021]

The trouble with this movie is they should have just made 2 separate movies. Isabel, the main character is having possible religious visions. Her husband is deployed in Iraq and she lives with her in laws. Her brother in law is recently released from jail and trying to stay out of trouble.

Detective Galban is investigating the murder of his partner. The dead partner's widow seduces him because she claims he has no friends. That's pretty much his story, no intrigue or twists.

The whole movie is hinting at their connection but its razor thin at best. We eventually find out Isabel's visions are in her head. The dead police detective is revealed as the man who raped her but she never indicated she was a rape victim. She may have suppressed that trauma but the audience has to wait until the end of the movie to find out. This missing piece of info could have added some drama into the movie badly needed throughout.

She kills her own father since she had to create all these visions as a result of her abuse as a child. Detective Galban shows up in the apartment to investigate and movie ends.

Are you totally confused and bored, luckily this 2 minute read just saved 2 hours. Don't watch this movie even if they paid you.

Don't waste your time

[marksspecialgirl · 1/10 · 16 February 2016]

The trailer is exciting but very misleading. The movie started well enough but quickly turned into a strangeness that defies description. Half trough it got very predictable, super weird and boring. Appeared like a low budget, indie, psycho production.

The basic story could have made a good movie, but the second half of the movie was more like an improvised 8th grade theater project without any concept. I knew exactly what will happen in the end.

What a shame, I really like Keanu Reeves, but even he could not pull this one out of the sh***.

Avoid at all costs!!!!! An evening locked up in the toilet is more enjoyable :)

The studio failed – this is NOT a horrible movie

[MT-15087 · 24 January 2016]

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!

Insipid mess - but stand out Ana de Armas performance

[Bofsensai · 4/10 · 21 February 2021]

I would want to add in this review to encourage to watch what, acknowledged, is otherwise now a mess, if only for a top performance in a difficult role for the much under-appreciated gorgeous Ana de Armas.

First up, noting that there are 33 producers credited (yup, you read that right: THIRTY THREE all vying for ...) here should immediately warn you, you are likely in for a mess:

Although, actually, this is not quite so, for hiding - certainly NOT 'exposed' - can be discerned what was probably originally a quite clever, intriguing and certainly most disturbing screenplay (by the director, Gee Malik Linton: but note, he had his name changed to a 'D. Dale = clearly, red flag warning number two!): note, it's current title is more or less meaningless, but his original title more or less gives the game away as it is when the final denouement plays out, you'll highly likely be left with trying to think / work out, did it really all fit together (No it didn't!):

Most unfortunately, with the addition of Reeves, the producers, scriptwriters - or someone* - moved the focus to him, but he has no palpable character arc; if not his - alleged - wooden acting style, then clearly on display is simply evidence of just how adrift he found himself in this not quite held together, not mess, but half cocked effort. Even Mira Sorvino is sorely underused in a what surely should have a been a pivotal part to the plot Linton originally set out, but here is unforgivably reduced just to a throwaway tryst role for Reeves. Pity, for the gorgeous Ana de Armas - (the reason I ran across it) - not only otherwise carries the whole 'mystery', but gives a fabulous, convincing performance as the wronged / mistreated ingénue to keep your eye on: when it all comes out (!) what is going on with her, she puts in a truly painful, difficult to watch portrayal (á la 'Irreversible' like.) One to watch to think what could have been if not interfered with by the filmdom powers that control! *

* See the Trivia notes: seems, blame 'Lionsgate Premiere' for the travesty. N.B. Armas (especially) and Reeves are far (far!) better in 'Knock Knock'= go see.

Impossible to watch - Do not waste your time

[trevorhawes1 · 1/10 · 23 March 2016]

Amazingly awful all round!

1/3 the movie is in 'American', 1/3 in Spanish and 1/3 is mumbled impossible to understand 'sub American dialect'

If that was not hard enough, the plot keeps flicking from one thing to another with no explanation or clarity. It is like 2 random films in one making it very annoying to watch as you do not know the time-line or who they are talking about half the time.

The acting is terrible too, as is the script and direction.

You start watching the film, then it switches scenes and you have no idea if they are talking about someone from the previous scene or this is a new story. I expect the team were on drugs!

As another reviewer said: Movies like this one should be a must-see in all film schools. "Exposed" should serve as an example of how many people it takes to make a movie and yet it can turn out this badly.

Wasted time I'll never get back

[emma965 · 5/10 · 9 July 2020]

Flop flop flop, was ok in,parts, the end was so disappointing

Flawed, but has an intriguing whodunit at its core

[ginocox-206-336968 · 6/10 · 24 January 2016]

"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.

HIdden Gem - Daughter of God (Exposed)

[arthur_tafero · 4/10 · 1 September 2019]

About the only thing wrong with this film is the title; it is terrible. It should have been called the Daughter of God, which was a perfect title, not some lame generalist title, that was PC and not meant to offend various churches and church officials (none of whom would get this film, anyway). Other than that, the film is almost perfect, and I am a very demanding and cynical critic, who also happens to be an agnostic taoist. So, it would have been a piece of cake for me to pan this film like the vast majority of others (most probably for religious reasons), but I base my critiques on scripts (this one was great), character development (this film did a great job with that as well), direction and cinematography (once again, the film was almost impeccable), and some of the finest work ever done by Keanu Reeves, an actor with several hits as well as a few misses in the past. Why any unbiased movie critic would pan this film is beyond me. See it for yourself and then decide if the film captures Washington Heights, where I once lived. It recaptured it for me. It avoided needless chase scenes and mindless violence (unless it was germane to the plot), It is a multi-layered film, in the mold of Serpico and Donnie Brasco, rather than a mindless "action cop" film, which is probably why so many mediocre critics panned it. Mindless under-30s, who have no concept of film composition or complexity of a screenplay. They are not critics; they are wanna-be Hollywood formula addicts, and this film does not conform to their formulas. Forget about the other ratings; see the movie and decide for yourself.

Well done

[colleen-baker · 9/10 · 19 March 2017]

Anyone who knows ANYTHING about trauma and abuse totally gets the movie. If you don't, you probably don't see how it all connects together. That's OK. there is a lot of hatred for this movie and it's likely because people expect certain movies from Keanu. I applaud him for doing this film. These are stories that need to be told, they can't all be Just for entertainment.

Don't believe everything you read here.

[guylyons · 7/10 · 1 March 2017]

I saw this film last night, knowing full well that reviewers slaughtered this work. I watched it late at night, and did not fall asleep, which is often the case with T V package film channel offerings.

There is a tale being told here, but it is far from clear just what is going on, yet I kept watching, with more and more interest. Rather than spoil everything by telling the pessimist what happens, I suggest you take a risk, and watch the film. The ending does make a lot more sense than a heck of a lot of other films that I have seen in the past year, so I refuse to join the queue of sceptics. To say the acting is rubbish ( 1 reviewer ) I beg to disagree here, and the script does help just a little more in explaining things towards the end of the film.

The entire movie takes forever to reach its climax

[siddiquemohammed · 1/10 · 30 April 2017]

This is the worst movie i watched in my entire life if you have problems sleeping make sure and try this movie at least make it useful for something .extremely boring to watch I highly advise you all not to waste your time as I did I truly regret it now .it takes forever to reach its climax and when it does the movie end it's just so dumb