Exposé

As others have said this is the only British-made film to have been banned in Britain during the "video nasty" scandal. Ironically, all the other films that the British government tried to ban are extremely popular today in Britain , even though most of them are completely worthless dreck (i.e. "The Dorm that Dripped Blood", "Forest of Fear"). But this film, while popular in Britain, is virtually unknown outside of the UK unfortunately--the idiot British censor only really managed to effectively ban one of the halfway-decent "nasties" from the rest of the world.

The movie features Udo Kier as a weird neurotic writer who wears rubber gloves (but apparently not a condom) during sex. Linda Hayden plays a psychotic secretary he hires, who seems to have some very dark ulterior motives. Kier is always pretty good, even if this isn't one of his best performances. Hayden though is GREAT. She has often expressed regret about this role, perhaps because for a RADA-trained actress, she spends a lot of time naked and/or masturbating. She also takes a lesbian roll in the hay with Kier's statuesque girlfriend (Fiona Richmond), and gets raped "Straw Dogs"-style by two local yokels (perhaps this might partly explain the alternate title), but right afterward she turns into Camille Keaton in "I Spit on Your Grave" (although this movie was actually made before that one). It's kind of hard to complain though that the lovely, lovely Linda Hayden would appear in such sexually graphic role, but really any number of actresses could have done THAT. None of them, however, could have equaled her performance here as a scary psychotic minx.

Strangely, the original British release of this was called "Expose" and prominently featured Richmond, not Hayden or Keir, in the promotional material, even though she is barely in the movie and couldn't act to save her life. At least, her hot sex scenes with Hayden and with a be-gloved Udo Kier are memorable. (Hell, today, in America at least, they'll take some talent-free pin-up queen like Richmond give her a much bigger part in a much more lame movie and then NOT have her even take her clothes off, so everyone will "take her seriously as an actress". Baaah!) This isn't a great movie (and I prefer the alternate title "House on Straw Hill"), but it's definitely a very decent Brit exploitation film and one of the few "video nasties" that really DESERVES to be seen outside the UK.

EXPOSE, aka THE HOUSE ON STRAW HILL, is a one-time video nasty now consigned to be forgotten by the weight of years. The truth is that it's a grotty little low-budget thriller that borrows some of the rape-revenge material of STRAW DOGS and turns it into a unique but only semi-successful tale of madness and murder.

The tale features a dubbed Udo Kier playing a writer who retires to his remote country home in order to work on his latest novel. While there, he must contend with the antics of his randy mistress Fiona Richmond (a one-time softcore starlet) and youthful secretary Linda Hayden (BLOOD ON SATAN'S CLAW).

Nothing much actually happens in this movie, and the expected bloodshed and sexual material is relatively tame by modern standards; certainly it has been eclipsed by far more explicit stuff in the past couple of decades. It's hard to see what all the fuss was about, really. Saying that, the film does boast a good performance from Hayden, at least, and it contains curios unique to its era: cameos from future stars Karl Howman and Vic Armstrong, and a genuinely sleazy, unsettling atmosphere straight out of the 1970s. No classic for sure, but well worth a look for fans of the material and the era.

Writer Paul Martin (Udo Kier) is holed up in his house (on Straw Hill) and needs an assistant to type his dictation. So he hires Linda Hindstatt (Linda Hayden), who seems pleasant enough. But Linda is a strange character, and her motives might not be as legit as they seem.

I really enjoyed this film, and I want to make that clear up front. It wasn't a fantastic horror story, the plot wasn't very strong and it wasn't even that thrilling. But it's purpose was never any of these things: it was exploitation, and I think the writer/director did a marvelous job in achieving this kind of production.

There's dirty sex (including latex gloves for some unexplained reason), plenty of nudity, females who enjoy their own bodies, a scene that may or may not be rape (the victim doesn't seem to mind). I don't know if this is art, but it made for a film that can hold your attention.

The tone is somewhat darker than your average film, but not too dark. The copy I watched came on a videotape with a preview for "The Stuff". After that, I was thinking this might be a rather cheesy or b-grade film, but that is not at all so (although some of the blood has an unusual orange tint).

The theme shouldn't be new to anyone who's seen plenty of movies. The "writer in solitude" theme is pretty standard -- "The Shining", "Misery", "Secret Window" all instantly come to mind (and those are just King films). There are two additional characters -- harassers and possible rapists -- who really add a new flavor to the piece. Their motives are unclear and they are so one-dimensional that it seems they've come from a comic book. One of them is wearing a shirt that seems to say "I am a vampire" (though I couldn't make it out clearly).

This is a good movie if you crave some exploitation. Don't expect an amazing plot, and don't try to impress your girlfriend with it (unless she's really odd). There seems to be some clamor online calling for a nice DVD transfer of the film, and I support them on that. I would happily own the DVD of "House on Straw Hill" (as my copy is titled). Kier's finest since "Mark of the Devil".

Kier is a fine, photogenic actor, but he's miscast (his voice is dubbed although this could've been intentional) in this otherwise suspenseful psychological thriller playing a deeply insecure and frustrated novelist whose next book is proving challenging to write, leading to the employment of Hayden as his typist. Hayden is initially a lot more relaxed but this soon changes when she begins to exploit her employer's fragile mood and psychological weaknesses.

Well photographed on location with a taut narrative and minimalist dialogue, first time director Clarke cultivates a general unease that's gripping but sporadically distracted by the superfluous titillation which seems to have no genuine plot justification other than for commercial purposes (note Richmond's appearances, most of her dialogue consists of moaning).

Mysterious and sensual it's also extremely bloody (burgundy not claret as Kier insists) with well-paced tension and a few decent shocks at regular intervals to hold the wandering attention. There would've been a dozen different ways to resolve the plot, and whilst it answers most of the lingering questions, it's not the most satisfying conclusion ever conceived. Better than average, but never really reaches its full potential.

Your reaction to 'House On Straw Hill' will depend on how big a fan of Udo Kier you are. If like me you think he's one of the coolest actors in the history of cinema you'll find this to be a fascinating piece of 70s exploitation. Udo plays Paul Martin, an arrogant and cold best-selling novelist having trouble completing his latest opus. After several aborted attempts around the globe he ends up in a secluded country house in England. When he hires a new secretary (Linda Hayden) he gets more than he bargained before. She is polymorphously perverse and is harboring a secret. In between dictation sessions Udo gets all hot and bothered with this mysterious newcomer. Meanwhile corpses begin to appear in unexpected places. Who is this woman and what does she want? Watch 'House On Straw Hill' and all will be revealed. A pretty cool movie all round with a strong performance from (an apparently dubbed) Kier, and plenty of nudity to satisfy smut fans.