Hija de Dios

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.

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!

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.

Difficult movie to watch overall. Was waiting for this to tie together in a satisfying way, but it never happened. Think they were shooting for film noir M Knight hybrid but not even sure anymore after the ending.

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.