Surexposé

... 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).

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.

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.

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.

"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.