An action-packed slog

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

The only British film to be included on the infamous 'video nasty' list of the 1980's, Expose, also known as The House on Straw Hill, is tailor-made for inclusion - a sleazy, often unforgivably dull piece of exploitation featuring lots of sex, blood and B-movie favourite Udo Kier. Kier plays writer Paul Martin, who, following the huge success of his debut novel, moves to the remote British countryside to focus all of his attention on his follow-up - an erotic piece he believes could win him the Pulitzer prize.Paul is plagued by visions of having sex with a well-endowed woman and his hands covered in blood, images he doesn't understand and which are hampering his efforts to get words onto paper. He calls for an assistant, and he is sent the young and beautiful Linda (Linda Hayden) who begins to efficiently type up his dictations. Yet something is not quite right with Linda - she sends Paul's faithful housekeeper away, carries sex toys and a large knife in her suitcase, and seems to open herself up sexually to Paul only to repel his advances.Comparisons to Sam Peckinpah's Straw Dogs (1971) are obvious (the countryside setting, the inclusion of the word 'straw' in the alternative title and in the script, and Hayden is a dead-ringer for Susan George), but Expose shares none of its quality. The sex scenes are gratuitous and ridiculously loud, and the gang-rape scene fails to garner any sympathy for the victim due to being shot like a soft- core porno. What comes in between is tedious to say the least, and the events play out with all the complexity of a soap opera. Technically, the film looks quite nice, and the performance of Hayden adds a layer of intrigue to her character, but without Mary Whitehouse and her cries of moral outrage, Expose would have been lost in the annals of exploitation.

This is quite simply the most atmospheric film I have ever seen. It is set in absolutely beautiful Essex countryside and the film certainly makes the most of this. The house of the title is also stunning (if you like period farmhouses with lots of original features) and added greatly to the sense of isolation and suspense that this film contained in bucket-loads. All the main cast were very convincing with Linda Hayden being particularly impressive as the psychotic wife of Simon Hindstatt who was driven to topping himself by Paul Martin (Udo Kier), who Linda targets to get even. Even the minor supporting cast were impressive. I thought that Patsy Smart played the busybody housekeeper to perfection and some of her scenes are the most entertaining in the film. Here constant references to 'the Commander and Mrs Percival' had me in stitches. Even the gardener was presented as 'sinister' even though all he did was dig the garden!!! It was all about camera angles and timing. Obviously a low budget film, which probably helped them makers knowing that they had to rely on creating atmosphere and good performances from the actors rather than CGI or other fancy and costly effects. I haven't seen the remake yet (which includes another performance from Linda Hayden), but i have high expectations.

As others have said this is the only British-made film to have been banned in Britain during the "video nasty" scandal. Ironically, all the other films that the British government tried to ban are extremely popular today in Britain , even though most of them are completely worthless dreck (i.e. "The Dorm that Dripped Blood", "Forest of Fear"). But this film, while popular in Britain, is virtually unknown outside of the UK unfortunately--the idiot British censor only really managed to effectively ban one of the halfway-decent "nasties" from the rest of the world.The movie features Udo Kier as a weird neurotic writer who wears rubber gloves (but apparently not a condom) during sex. Linda Hayden plays a psychotic secretary he hires, who seems to have some very dark ulterior motives. Kier is always pretty good, even if this isn't one of his best performances. Hayden though is GREAT. She has often expressed regret about this role, perhaps because for a RADA-trained actress, she spends a lot of time naked and/or masturbating. She also takes a lesbian roll in the hay with Kier's statuesque girlfriend (Fiona Richmond), and gets raped "Straw Dogs"-style by two local yokels (perhaps this might partly explain the alternate title), but right afterward she turns into Camille Keaton in "I Spit on Your Grave" (although this movie was actually made before that one). It's kind of hard to complain though that the lovely, lovely Linda Hayden would appear in such sexually graphic role, but really any number of actresses could have done THAT. None of them, however, could have equaled her performance here as a scary psychotic minx.Strangely, the original British release of this was called "Expose" and prominently featured Richmond, not Hayden or Keir, in the promotional material, even though she is barely in the movie and couldn't act to save her life. At least, her hot sex scenes with Hayden and with a be-gloved Udo Kier are memorable. (Hell, today, in America at least, they'll take some talent-free pin-up queen like Richmond give her a much bigger part in a much more lame movie and then NOT have her even take her clothes off, so everyone will "take her seriously as an actress". Baaah!) This isn't a great movie (and I prefer the alternate title "House on Straw Hill"), but it's definitely a very decent Brit exploitation film and one of the few "video nasties" that really DESERVES to be seen outside the UK.

Expose (aka The House on Straw Hill) is extremely graphic. The sex is graphic, with gloating scenes of love making, masturbation and a scene near the end which looks suspiciously like anal sex. The violence is graphic too, with a fair bit of spilled blood and sadistic detail during the running time.Udo Kier gives an OK performance as a novelist who murdered a colleague in order to steal his latest manuscript. He is now working on a new book, with young secretary Linda Hayden to help him, but he can't seem to shrug off uncontrollable hallucinations about the crime he has committed.The director indulges in some flashy film-making techniques, but for all this pomp and circumstance there is no hiding the fact that this is pure exploitation fodder. I believe that this may well be the most heavily censored and graphic British film ever made, so it worth seeing for that dubious distinction (especially if you can track down the uncut 117 minute version.... very rare though). However, it's not really a very good movie and once you've experienced it, it is unlikely that you will want to watch it again. Footnote: If you're a fan of British sex siren Fiona Richmond, you'll be pleased to know that she spends most of this movie stark naked.