"Exposed" is one of the oddest movies I have seen for a long time. It's so strange at times, it is hard to believe that a major Hollywood studio decided to bankroll and release it. It is easier to believe the reports that it was a box office flop. I wouldn't really call it a bad movie, because there are some good things here and there. The photography is very good, with rich colors and conveying the feeling of coldness when it's winter. The musical score by Georges Delerue is also nice, with also a few pleasant golden oldies thrown in here and there. And the acting is generally good. However, the story is a mess. The movie simply cannot make its mind up as to what it's about. It starts off as a look at a college student getting over a relationship with one of her professors, then moves to becoming a tale about a woman who becomes a heavily in demand professional model (overnight!), then moves to a relationship budding between the movie's heroine and someone somewhat older, then concludes by becoming a thriller about finding and terminating a terrorist! I know that what I just wrote may make the movie sound like something so-bad-it's-good for some bad movie fans, but they will probably find it the way I did - a mess, yes, but a slow moving mess that's not that much fun with any angle you may approach it with. It's not a surprise that the movie today is more or less forgotten.

"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

Every once in a while, you see a movie so dull and so stupid, you have to wonder if drugs were somehow involved in making the film. 'Exposed' is one of those films.The plot of this film doesn't unravel, it oozes like molasses in January. Nastassja Kinski plays a Wisconsin farm girl named Elizabeth who leaves home and runs away to New York. After being discovered by a fashion photographer (McShane) she is whisked away into the glamorous world of fashion. Soon she's in Europe, and is recruited by a mysterious violin player (the awful corpse-like Rudolf Nureyev) to infiltrate a terrorist organization and kill it's leader. The leader is played by Harvey Keitel, who is given next to nothing to do.The only good scene is at the very beginning when two terrorist babes blow up a Parisian restaurant. But it all goes downhill from there. In more capable hands and with a better cast, this film could have been good. But everything is a mess. The script is convoluted and boring, the acting is atrocious, the direction is flat, there is no suspense, and no characters that seem even human.Oddly, so many people seem to praise Nastassja Kinski as a great actress. I've just never seen it. In every film I've seen her in she just seems vacant and bored, but this is Kinski at her worst, no doubt.

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.