jonathanruano "Exposed" has to be one of the most unusual, different, and unpredictable films I have ever seen. Many of the reviews on IMDb fault this film for having an incoherent plot. I actually believe that this criticism is unjustified, since writer-director James Toback is really trying to make a very ambitious film on the theme of the western world "breaking down" morally, politically, economically, and every other way. Toback, playing a professor in this picture, even makes this point rather banally to a classroom filled with indifferent students. The film then pursues this theme in a very fresh and original way by exploring the turbulent life of Elizabeth Carlson, who is played brilliantly here by the German actress Nastassja Kinski. The beginning of the film shows a terrorist attack and Elizabeth looking indifferently at her literature professor in that order, begging the question of how these two scenes are related. Then over the course of a series of extraordinary (but nonetheless plausible) plot twists, we learn the answer to this question. The end of the film shows Elizabeth gazing over her dying lover in the streets of Paris as the western world, in a metaphorical sense, collapses all around her.Aside from the mostly interesting plot, the strength of the film lies in Natassija Kinski's performance as Elizabeth. She plays this character so brilliantly that we can almost overlook those moments in the film where she delivers poor lines. Rudolf Nureyev's performance as the enigmatic violinist David Jelline is not as good, but he is still very interesting to watch all the same. Now the film is not without its weaknesses. I found the acting of most of the supporting cast to be amateurish and dull, including Toback's brief performance as the literature professor. Moreover, "Exposed" starts out a bit too slowly in the beginning before picking up tempo and becoming more interesting. Yet there were enough unexpected plot developments (including a "violin seduction" that has to be seen to be believed), classical music, and interesting characters to keep me interested right up to the end.

tomsview When I picked this movie out of the sale bin I wasn't really expecting an undiscovered gem, but what a fascinating cast. Like a number of other reviewers, possibly also male, the fact that it starred Nastassja Kinski was almost enough reason to buy it. However it also starred Rudolf Nureyev and that sounded interesting. Also on board were Harvey Keitel and Ian McShane, while further down the cast list was Aussie, Ron Randell in his last movie, and even Bibi Andersson of Ingar Bergman fame. "Exposed" was definitely worth risking $4.99.Of course, buying movies just for the stars is as dangerous as buying them just for the special effects – usually it's like a snack full of empty calories – for proper nourishment; a movie needs a good story. Not that "Exposed" doesn't have a story, it actually has too much story, and it's a pretty whacked one.It's full of ideas that miss the mark, and it's hard to follow. I had to rewind the movie more than once to come up with even a brief summary.Elizabeth Carlson, played by Nastassja Kinski, leaves a Mid-Western college where she has been having an unhappy affair with one of her professors, Leo Boscovitch, an unsympathetic character played rather flatly by James Toback who also wrote and directed the film.Arriving in New York, Elizabeth is discovered by fashion photographer, Greg Miller played by Ian McShane – he sees a great future for that sultry look. She becomes a famous model, and attracts the attention of Daniel Jelline, Rudolf Nureyev's character, a man committed to hunting down a deadly terrorist named Rivas. Daniel also happens to be a world-renowned concert violinist.After following Daniel to Paris, she finds that he has set her up as a lure for Rivas, played by Harvey Keitel. Rivas is obsessed with her from photographs in magazines – thankfully he hasn't created a 'mad wall' with the photos in the best tradition of movie psychos. Elizabeth is in love with Daniel and goes along with his plan. Rivas gets to spout his terrorist philosophy before events come to a head with a shootout on the banks of the Seine.In the end, it's too contrived and too talky; the terrorists may as well have been vampires for all the sense it makes.There is one long scene with Nureyev and Kinski that eventually leads to modest exposure in the bedroom. It's a chance to compare them. According to IMDb he was 1.72m tall and she was 1.69m tall, although in the movie they look about the same height – it could be a case for "Celebrity Heights". He was older, but they were almost a male and female version of the same look – killer cheekbones, smouldering sensuality, hooded eyelids, great lips, a touch of petulance plus accents. They both had lithe bodies and feline grace – after all, the year before she was a sexy cat-person in the otherwise deadly remake of "Cat People".Both performers are low-key. She is good; he is bad – his performance is almost a throwback to silent cinema, maybe he never got over playing Valentino. Anyway, Nureyev will hardly be remembered for his acting.Toback, who had a self-confessed gambling addiction in real life, takes chances with his movies. When he gets it right, such as the screenplay for "The Gambler", he creates a movie that stays with you. Unfortunately "Exposed" is one that doesn't.

Rodrigo Amaro "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 except 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 choose 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

challenger86 When you focus on the aspect "direction", this movie seems to be one of the worst you can watch. The script, the direction, it's a whole mess. A silly story, scenes which are too long... The only positive aspect about this movie is Natassia Kinski.Mr. Toback (adequate name) probably has some influent friends, or is somebody's cousin or something.In this film, I always had the impression, that Mr Toback thinks that terrorism is the worst threat that exists for humanity. More important aspects, like corruption, hunger, inequality, aren't even mentioned. Forget this trash! I had to watch several good movies to start forgetting this crap.