This film caused a stir when it was classed as a "Video Nasty" in the mid 1908s. but before then I don't remember it being reviewed or mentioned in most reference sources. Which is probably because it's mundane and forgettable.The film sees Udo Keir play a reclusive writer who has rented a remote cottage to bang out his next raunchy novel. Advertising for a typist produces sultry Linda Hayden as the (presumably) only applicant. As soon as she arrives you can tell from her frosty demeanour that she has an agenda of her own. Udo has his own problems, being troubled by continual flashbacks to some bloody trauma. The typing of the novel begins, intercut with a couple of appearances by British model Fiona Richmond as Udo's lover/prostitute, and couple of deaths of incidental characters as well.None of this is very engaging or gripping. The performances are almost all pretty bad. Fiona Richmond really has no acting talent at all, her inclusion in the film is purely for visual purposes (she gets naked in every scene she appears in). Linda Hayden does have proved acting ability, but here she seems to have been directed to sleepwalk her way through the script. Udo Kier is dubbed, so his performance has no depth at all, especially as he is given some very ridiculous things to do, especially in his sex scenes with Richmond. Actually, all the sex scenes are awkward and embarrassing, lacking any erotic charge and very poorly simulated. The same goes for the scenes of violence, in which those tiresome knives that squirt blood when drawn over skin are the tool of choice - I can't believe that when any of the knife attack footage was reviewed after shooting, they didn't realise how bad it was.Eventually the thing comes to a close with a rather unsurprising "reveal", and the credits finally roll - thank god. It's hard to believe that "Expose" was banned as a video nasty with content as lame as this, but that's what hype and hysteria does. Apparently this new Bluray release is uncut, so that means the British VHS release was even less impressive than this - if that's possible.Is it worth watching? If you like lots of female nudity, no matter how un-erotic it looks, then yes. Actually Linda Hayden comes across as far more alluring than Fiona Richmond, who I can now only remember for unwittingly displaying a mouth almost completely full of gold filings. But does it have tension, thrills and a gripping story? No.

This movie has the triple distinction of being one of the 72 (though some sources state there were really 74!) infamous "Video Nasties" crackdown that took place in England during the first half of the 1980s, one of the 39 among them that were successfully prosecuted and subsequently suffered from a long-term ban, and also the only British film to actually make the list! Now that I have watched it for myself, I cannot say the picture does in fact deserve all the attention that comes with such notoriety but, considering the quality of the sheer majority of those "Video Nasties", this is definitely a step-up! Incidentally, EXPOSE' has a couple of other more appropriate monikers: TRAUMA and THE HOUSE ON STRAW HILL (which is the title borne by the copy I acquired), and I am pretty sure the latter was intentionally evoking both STRAW DOGS (1971) and LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT (1972), two even more infamous films of the era; to be fair, it does owe something to each of them but, to the movie's credit, it also has its own identity.The plot deals with a novelist (a dubbed Udo Kier – as it happens, the star of yet another "Video Nasty" i.e. FLESH FOR FRANKENSTEIN {1974}) who has acquired instant celebrity status with his first book and is having a hard time following it up (though how he pretends to even be considered for the Pulitzer Prize with a piece of erotic fiction filled with such descriptions of someone engaging in the sexual act "like a virtuoso on his Stradivarius", to say nothing of blatant errors in typography picked up in close-ups, is beyond me!). To this end, he retires to a county house in England and, in order to speed up the writing process and meet his publisher's deadline, he is sent a secretary (Linda Hayden). The girl, however, has an agenda of her own – tied up with the nightmare that Kier himself keeps having (his neurosis extends to donning rubber gloves while making love to his girlfriend, softcore superstar Fiona Richmond!) – and soon proves to be even more disturbed than he is! The STRAW DOGS connection is particularly evidenced by the scenes involving a couple of yokels – one of whom, amusingly, sports a T-shirt boasting the inscription "I'm a Vampyre") – who importune Hayden when she arrives at the train station and then get to rape her in the fields outside Kier's house. The incident, however, does not traumatize her in the way that it should (which is, perhaps, another clue to her unhinged state-of-mind) since, for one thing, she disposes herself of the duo pretty easily but, also, because she had been repeatedly masturbating to the photo of the man who appears as a murder victim in Kier's visions (she even absents herself from typing to go have a 'quick one', with her employer subsequently pointing out "You've been a long time", to which she giddily quips, "In coming?"). One wonders why Hayden does not just 'get it on' with Kier (even if she does, eventually, as well as Richmond when the latter turns up at the house!)...but, of course, it has something to do with her mission there – which is to see the novel through before the revenge (I predicted the outcome of this, by the way: Kier is, in fact, a fraud who has not only stolen the manuscript of the true author and passed it off as his own but he has even killed the man, who happens to be Hayden's hubby) can be actuated. An interesting scene in this regard has the leading lady so into her work by the end that she literally finishes the book for the hero.Therein, then, lies a typical problem with this type of fare: even if, deep down, we sympathize with Hayden's motives, her extreme methods still decree that she is made out to be a villainess and, consequently, has to pay for her actions – but it also means that Kier himself, whose selfish/callous behavior actually put the whole thing in motion, is ultimately let off the hook (despite being the recipient of several knife wounds which will surely make him think that much harder on his next career move!) thanks to the eleventh-hour and, frankly, WTF intervention of one of the rapists who has unaccountably survived a gunshot to the face!! Apart from those instances already mentioned, the violence – not all that gory given its reputation (incidentally, my copy ran for 80 minutes, which I take to be a PAL conversion of the original 84-minute duration) – is directed at an old and nagging housekeeper (when she refuses to leave) as well as Kier's girlfriend (after Hayden has tricked her employer so that the two can remain alone). The sex, on the other hand, is ample and rather strong for the time but still too-obviously simulated (especially Richmond performing fellatio on Kier). For the record, Hayden and Richmond would later reunite for the same director in LET'S GET LAID (1978) – with the film he made in between, HARDCORE (1977), being a fictionalized biopic of Richmond (who even portrays herself)!

I was pleasantly surprised by this film. Usually a film of this genre is not really worthwhile staying up late for. You know, the sort of film where a mad person goes stalking through a lonely house for one or two people, the odd flash of flesh here and there - that sort of thing.If it wasn't for the fact that the RADIO TIMES - that's the TV listings over here in England, folks - had given this film 3 stars out of 5, then I wouldn't have bothered. As it was, I was intrigued as to what good a high-brow magazine saw in this film.The plot is fairly simple. Udo Kier plays a writer who lives in a house in a remote area of the English Countryside. He is trying to write his second novel, a follow up to the smash hit that he had previously written. But he can't really type straight onto paper that well, so he decides to hire a secretary, Linda (Linda Haydon). It turns out, however, that Linda is not whom she seems, and soon dead bodies begin to crop up all over the place...This film is pure entertainment. There are some incredibly stupid moments, yes, and you can't help wondering in today's world how the managed to get away with the awful dubbing over Udo Kier's voice throughout the film. Fiona Richmond, though very attractive, is reduced in her first big screen role as Kier's girlfriend, and so therefore generally gets slapped about before she is - thankfully - done in.But the storyline is a fairly decent one, and the performances - particularly of Linda Haydon - are very good. The scenes of loneliness and eeriness of the place is shown quite well in the setting. There are some naughty scenes, but compared to what we have today these are in fact rather tame.It is in the gore where lies the reason for its certificate. Sometimes there are random shots of the stuff, which are explained to a greater depth later on, and sometimes it is directly in-your-face type work.On the whole this is a good suspenseful thriller that will entertain and even surprise you on more than one occasion.6/10

Writer Paul Martin has scored a massive hit with his first novel and has retreated to a remote cottage in the heart of the English countryside to concentrate on his follow up.He's accompanied by his new secretary Linda Hinstatt,a housekeeper Mrs Aston and occasionally his lover Suzanne.However there is something strange about Linda and soon the bodies begin to pile up."Exposé" along with "Xtro" was classified as a video nasty in the UK.Admittedly it has a few sex/nudity scenes and a little bit of bloody violence,but there is not enough exploitative elements for my liking.Udo Kier is decent as a highly unlikeable writer and Linda Hayden is excellent as his secretary.She openly masturbates few times and has a great lesbian encounter with Fiona Richmond.The violence is quite tame except for the bathroom murder scene which is pretty nasty.The direction is lifeless,the characters are unpleasant and the film is slightly dull.Still I enjoyed it and you should too,if you like exploitation cinema.7 out of 10.