Exhibit X (2012) Poster

(2012)

User Reviews

Review this title
5 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
2/10
Exhibit X: Hard to even consider a movie at all
Platypuschow26 September 2017
The opening text explains that the two videos the viewer is about to see are evidence in a trial. One depicts the lead up to a party where 50 people died and the other is the suspect in the time before the party.

Therefore as you can imagine this is essentially a found footage film, trouble is nothing happens.

Now when I say that generally I mean very little happens and that is common in this type of film but here I mean it literally.

In the party segment again nothing happens and it's not at all explained how everyone died or how it happened, just 5 seconds of screaming and then it cuts to.....

....the second video which is just a girl talking to the camera about her past and dry humping a pillow......then the credits roll.

It's hard to call this a movie, it's just random scenes of people talking and there is absolutely no plot whatsoever.

The Good:

Not a sausage

The Bad:

Audio quality fluctuates

SFX are horrifically bad

One scene is so lengthy, so unnecessary and so deep it just feels stupidly out of place

No plot

No entertainment value at all
8 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
I want to remember this forever
nogodnomasters20 August 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Includes plot points, briefly. We already know everyone dies in the end except one person from the opening.

This is introduced as an anonymous source film being shown to a jury without any objection to admission of evidence. Once you get past this hurdle, we get to see a found footage tape shot by Billy (Ryken Zane) over a several day period while he wears the same shirt and tie. Billy is reluctantly shooting a kick-off promotional party for Firestarter Vodka without Drew Barrymore. The party is to take place in a haunted house. The film begins with a bunch of boring interviews, goes to a party where white people stand around drinking vodka in a plastic cup saying what a great party they are throwing. Tony (Dan Gruenberg) gets lucky and unlucky with Angela (Apriel Starkweather) whose face in on the screen doing a monologue and humping her pillow for the last 15 minutes or so. This was way too long. Interviews way too long and boring. And we never get to see the fire that killed them, light on special effects. I did like the Elvis guy.

Guide: F-word, sex, and brief nudity
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Waste Of Time
latonpowers18 October 2021
Seriously horrible. Badly executed. Horrible acting. Just dumb in every way possible. I get the point. Just badly done. I watch a lot of bad horror movies. This is one of the worst, and not in any good way. Waste of time.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
HO-LEE-COW! This is ONE BAD MOVIE. REALLY BAD.
camarossdriver1 December 2022
First of all...if you want your ears blown out,this is the movie for you. Someone had NO IDEA how to do sound mixing at all. The acting is actually COMICAL at BEST. I've seen a LOT of HORRIBLE "Found Footage" movies,but this one MIGHT take the cake as the WORST ONE I have ever seen...it's at LEAST in the TOP 5. This is one of those movies where you think to yourself..."This can't get any worse."...but then it surprises you and DOES get worse..MUCH MUCH worse. I can't even recommend this one as a "So Bad it's Good" movie. It embarrassingly BAD,and PAINFUL to watch. I saw it for FREE,and even THAT was too high of a price to pay. Stay away from this heap at all costs.

Toodles.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Exhibit Why?
tmccull529 October 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I present to you Exhibit Why... as in why was this movie even made?

The film is presented as a "found footage" movie, about video and audio footage an unnamed source who found it in their basement. This footage is then presented to a jury as evidence of a possible crime. The viewer (you) are supposed to see what the jury saw. Unfortunately, what the jury saw was a bunch of stupid, meaningless "interviews", with the "interviewees" being played by actors who don't even have the most rudimentary theatrical skills.

We have buddies Sean, Tony, and Billy. Sean is trying to make money promoting a brand of vodka called "Firestarter", but he's at loss as to how to do this. Tony suggests that Sean should throw a party. GENIUS! BRILLIANT! A PARTY promoting BOOZE! Why hasn't anyone ever thought of this novel concept before?! Oh, wait... only anyone who has ever thrown a party already has.

Never mind that! We're making a movie here! Kind of. Sort of.

Tony then suggests that Sean should throw this party in one of the most haunted houses in the country. Think of the publicity, Tony exclaims. What could possibly go wrong with getting people drunk in a haunted house that was once razed by fire? What possible liability could there be for anyone throwing said party? Billy has reservations about this, as he is genuinely afraid of the "famous Edgar Bradford House", and he truly believes that the place is haunted, and that throwing a party there is a very bad idea. Sean and Tony blow Billy off, and proceed with their plan. Billy reluctantly goes along after Tony suggests that Billy records the entire event as part of a documentary about the Haunting.

This makes sense to Billy because, you know, virtually everyone seeking to document genuine paranormal evidence and activity does so in an atmosphere rife with loud music, dancing, and talking above the decibel level of the music. Those are perfect conditions for capturing spectral voices and EVP, right? When seeking to capture footage of something as elusive as ghosts, you would want as many visual obstructions and distractions as possible, wouldn't you? Sure you would! Wouldn't anyone seeking conclusive proof of the existence of ghosts and spirits?

The plot and premise of this movie are beyond stupid. The acting is abysmal. The "stud ladies' man", Tony, has the same expression on his face for the entire movie. According to this movie, Tony somehow charms and captivates model that once appeared in the pages of "Vogue"... except that she's an insecure psychopath who somehow becomes immediately and irrationally obsessed with him. They sneak off to do the deed... and surprise! The ghost of Edgar Bradford shows up and starts watching them doing the Humpty Dance. Edgar looks like a reject from the old Thomas Dolby 1980s "She Blinded Me With Science" MTV music video.

After they bump uglies, the Vogue model confesses to Tony that she came to the party specifically for him. She saw his picture on Sean's Facebook page, and she fell instantly and madly in love with him. Yeah, because fashion models become obsessed with ordinary, every-day guys after seeing one photograph of them all of the time. You read about that sort of thing happening in social media every day, don't you?

This movie is supposedly set in a stately, haunted old mansion, but takes place in a... condo? A new, clean, bright and shiny... condo?

So, do you still want to watch this dumpster fire of a "movie"?
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed