Suspicions

"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.

A woman leaves a nightclub and, over the objections of her brother-in-law, insists on taking the subway home alone. On the train platform she witnesses an incredible event: an overly well-dressed man with a decidedly albino cast to his features walks on air and levitates above the subway track, peering down the tunnel to see if the train is arriving. He turns, walks back to the platform, and smiles at the woman.

The next day, a crooked police officer is found dead in the same subway station, and one by one, all the associates of the woman disappear or are murdered. She herself begins to witness surreal visions which increase in frequency when she befriends a small girl she suspects to be a victim of sexual abuse.

This movie had the makings of an intriguing plot, as the story expands and we learn more about the various characters and how they are, or may be, related. Unfortunately, the makings of a plot do not equal a plot itself, and this is never more so the case than when the studio edits the film to try to create suspense and mystery that should have been inherent in the original screenplay. The endless flashbacks, vision sequences, and out-of-chronology scenes add nothing to the film but confusion and, oddly enough, tedium. They take a better-than-average premise and turn it into a mess of a movie, saved primarily by the few nuggets of genuine creativity in the plot and the looks and acting of Ana de Armas and the cast who portray her family members.

I gave this film 6 stars, solely because I felt the current consensus of 4.2 is absurdly low. A realistic rating would be in the 5.2 to 5.5 range, in my opinion. As the film is only 90 minutes, you won't waste much time watching it if you happen to disagree.

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.

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.