Exposed (2016)

> I would like to try the director's cut; this one is a post-production disaster. If you say it is the worst film of the year, I won't deny that. There are more substandard films than this, but having a big name like Keanu Reeves, it is a great disappointment. It was written and directed by an inexperienced filmmaker. That was a big challenge the production house has taken, and in the end it's a failed attempt. But that was not the actual reason for the disaster. Maybe the director's cut would have been better than this version. Because the actual film was a bilingual drama that reminds us classic cult films. But the production house decided to turn it into a money generating product. Due to that plan-B it went through the lots of cuts to turn it into a single story. In the end the 'lost in translation' happened. So that's answers why it was credited under a false director's name. It is hard to give an opinion on the story, because it's a confusing narration due to imbalance in the genres which is originally meant for two different stories. The twist was taken straight out of another film, so that makes the conclusion was very silly. First of all, Keanu Reeves' character was next to nothing. I don't understand how he ended up in this project. If his side story was chopped off, it would have made a decent short film and vice versa. I am sure, 8 out of 10 would feel a letdown and the remaining 2 might like it or maybe fall into a confused state. 3½/10