Surexposé

This is a colossal waste of the talent of actors like Keitel, Nastassja Kinski, Carl Lee and Russo. The "revolutionaries" are portrayed as birdbrained automatons. The dialogue is embarrassing. Nureyev is positively wooden. Kinski does a ridiculous dance, made choppy by pathetic editing. If memory serves, the direction was so bad that during a silly car chase the pursued and pursuers are actually passed by a Parisian taxi in a traffic circle. That has to be a metaphor for the entire travesty. The movie would be gauged as sophomoric compared to the worst efforts of high school film classes.

Yeah, yeah...who could not find fault with this implausible menagerie of models & Marxists? Here, even the most inept of film-schoolers could find a surplus of shortfalls, for which to offer their trite insight. What's blatantly apparent with this film is...the script seems never to have transcended the first-draft stage...the characters all seem either to be on psychotropic drugs, or to be in need of psychotherapeutic ones...and the director seems to have had his mind on other things – perhaps how to act in his small but completely forgettable part.

However, for some of us, the challenge is to discover the good points of 'critical failures', such as "Exposed", and as everyone seems to be somewhat more then vaguely aware, what's most redeeming about this film is, in a word, "NASTASSJAKINSKI"! When she is before the camera, all the problems behind it seem insignificant.

Cheers, J.B. - Prospect Point Productions, Inc.

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" 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.

The early 80's seemed to be a ripe time for espionage-themed films and, taken as a whole, is probably somewhere in the middle in terms of quality (goodness knows there were worse!). However, what makes it worth seeing are two things: its European locales (all in monochromatic greys and browns) and, first and foremost, the astonishing and eye-achingly beautiful Kinski, in what may well be her ripest, fiercest, most raw performance captured on film. What surrounds her, unfortunately, is either standard or downright embarassing: wooden supporting performances (particularly Nureyev, who looks singularly uneasy and clodding, ironic for someone who spent a lifetime being praised for his graceful moves), an often senseless plot, and direction that veers from shameful to confused, none of which is helped by sometimes-spastic editing. And yet...there is Kinski, breathing life into this dull affair in spite of itself, wiping everyone else from the screen and the audience's eyes and minds. Here, she is a force to be reckoned with, radiating an intriguing blend of natural awkwardness and just-enough confidence: in essence, she is 100% REAL. There isn't a single false moment delivered by her, as a young woman who falls into the world of both modeling and espionage, giving the film as a whole the unmistakable air of 'what-could-have-been'. If this movie had a tenth of what she provides, it would still rate, despite being dated, as a modern-day classic. As it is, it IS, whatever its many, many flaws, worth seeing (for it's often-silly early-80's fashions, as a time machine, those aforementioned locales) but she is the main reason why. She is brilliant.