I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Let's be realistic.

It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

I love art films don't get me wrong but this is just a plain bore.Even the female leads two attempts at masturbation don't titillate. Furthermore they don't add anything to the story either. Though, I do enjoy the scene where she plays with the blinds nude. That at least had something visually striking to it.Honestly I'd be surprised if this filmmaker will get financing to ever make a film again.The neighborhood is clearly the most attractive thing about the film. The house and it's furnishings are obviously posh and eye-catching so in effect they are the most important thing about this film. But these two aspects a film doesn't make.

I have just finished watching Hogg's three films on Netflix. "Exhibition" is the most recent. I see a progression in her work from "Unrelated" through "Archipelago", but not in this film. Her strong points are setting and character. She obviously has no interest in plot. She uses superficial circumstance as her plot line. Summer in Italy, holiday on the Isles of Scilly, posh house in the city being sold.The production values are good. The films are all interesting visually. The casts are also good. The scenes form a collage, not a painting or sculpture. The overwhelming mood of all three films is boredom. Boredom of people with too much privilege and not enough personal insight or maturity. This is perhaps the most annoying aspect of "Exhibition". Two wealthy narcissists bump into each other in a designer manse. D's so-called performance art is simply a channeling of her sexual and emotional dysfunction. H is a classic enabler and codependent. Even the sadomasochistic element of their relationship is boring.I got something from both "Unrelated" and "Archipelago". I got nothing from "Exhibition" other than a cramp from sitting though it.

The term 'Art Film' can sometimes mean an interesting, unique experience full of symbolic possibility, or it can be a code word for pretentious bore-fest! Exhibition easily falls in the latter.D (Viv Albertine) and H (Liam Gillick) are a married couple who live in what Al Pacino from 'Heat' would describe as a 'Bullshit postmodern apartment!' They are both artists and have their own studio in separate rooms. They communicate to each other by using the speaker phone, and there is a spiral staircase which unites the house. We see D sitting around in her room moving a stool around and sitting on it, putting together some kind of conceptual art performance which symbolises something. There is a shot of her lying on a rock or opening cupboard doors and other random, pedestrian activities which I don't care about. There seems to be tension between the couple. D does not like to talk to H about her art because he might be honest to the point of insensitive. H tries to occasionally assert his manhood by trying to have sex with her but she resists. More scenes of them sitting around talking about stuff and waffle about the house being a living and breathing entity which harbours good vibrations within the walls. They have to sell the house for some reason, but D wants to stay and blah blah blah! I found it so tedious and so monotonous, I started looking away from the screen as I did not care what was going on at all. Both characters were unlikable, un-relatable and a couple of hollow, ostentatious snobs making the kind of art which is disposable and meaningless. With all these glowing reviews stating how enigmatic and sensual it was, I had no feelings of any kind of enigma or sensuality whatsoever. Was I missing something? Clearly I am the wrong target audience here who has no care for understanding whatever the point of this film was. I am sure it's not that important…. to non pretentious people anyway!

Spoiler Alert:This films is absolute sh*t.It's a real case of the emperors new clothes. Having worked in the film and TV industry for 22 years I know a lot of technician and actors. and I know a lot of technicians and actors who have worked with The Director Joanna Hogg. They all laugh as she is considered to be truly appalling as a director, she doesn't plan, isn't inventive, doesn't block actors well, or give good direction, she has no originality and everything she has was created by someone else and has absolutely no understanding or lighting, camera or editing, an absolute nightmare. Please Joanna, tell me what it is you bring to the set? But apparently this is OK according to the critics who for some reason applaud her minimalist ability.Very much in the same way that a child might scrawl some green crayon on a canvass, and then an art gallery owner might decide to hand the scribble in his gallery so to do the critics laud this scribble.As a technician I can see actors looking for marks, stumbling over each others lines, whilst clearly improvising lines that don't quite make sense. I see poor framing and bad lighting, I see the camera work is tedious, the editing perfunctory, in my head I keep saying, "Cut, cut, cut, please for the love of God cut." and it still won't cut.The script is woeful in it's sheer lack of content, I swear that if it was written out it'd be about 50 pages.Archipelago was truly insulting to film makers and crew, and this is worse. Please Joanna stop, just stop, you have no talent and no vision, you are a waste of digital resources when we could be watching something else like best of face palm on you-tube.You have been warned. This film is sh*t.