A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

The movie is made so realistic it has a lot of that WoW feeling at the right moments and never tooo over the top. the suspense is done so well and the emotion is felt. Very well put together with the music and all.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

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 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.

EXPOSÉ Aspect ratio: 1.85:1Sound format: MonoNot so much a horror film, more a psychological thriller with lashings of nudity and violence, this cheapjack contribution to the 'sex-horror' subgenre of 1970's cinema stars Euro favorite Udo Kier (sporting a dubbed mid-Atlantic accent) as a successful novelist whose guilty secrets have isolated him within a picturesque cottage deep in the English countryside. Under a deadline to complete another book in the wake of his first bestseller, he hires temp secretary Linda Hayden (THE BLOOD ON SATAN'S CLAW), a ripe young sexpot given to masturbating languorously wherever the fancy takes her (in her bedroom, in the fields surrounding Kier's home) and murdering anyone who disturbs her fragile psychosis. 'Nothing, but nothing, is left to the imagination...' promised the original UK ad-mats, and - true to form - the film wears its exploitation elements like a badge of honor, casting British sex queen Fiona Richmond in her first major role (prompting acres of free publicity in contemporary skin mags) as Kier's highly-sexed girlfriend who enjoys lusty romps with her neurotic paramour before surrendering to a lesbian liaison with the lovely Linda.Directed by James Kenelm Clarke (HARDCORE, LET'S GET LAID), produced by Brian Smedley-Aston (VAMPYRES, DEADLY MANOR), and partly financed by Paul Raymond (the smut baron who launched Richmond to fame), the film slows to a crawl between the aforementioned bouts of nudity and violence, until the reasons for Hayden's murderous rampage are unveiled and she launches a merciless assault on the object of her bloody wrath. Though she (reportedly) distanced herself from the production in later interviews, Hayden is the film's trump card, a voluptuous beauty whose ample charms and faux innocence conceal a cat-like fury. Sleaze fans will certainly get their money's worth, though casual viewers may be less forgiving of the movie's many drawbacks. Also known as TRAUMA and THE HOUSE ON STRAW HILL.

I know the famous and scandalous success of this brilliant film written and directed by James Clarke in 1975, the most exciting moment for movies in the British industry. "The house on Straw Hill" is a suspense thriller with a lot of blood and oniric sexual scenes with calculated violence and slowly intimate moments. No-one knows the reasons of the characters, specially Udo Kier -a paranoid writer with blood nightmares- and Lynda Hayden -a mysterious secretary with bad intentions-. The music, the splendid locations and the beautiful photography of the woods and the manor in Hatfield Peverel is the basic attraction of this horrific and erotic film banned in United Kingdom. Lynda Hayden has her moments as a killer female character and a very sexual presence described by the filmmaker around the movie. Udo Kier, in their best moments before -he did "Story of O" in the same year- is vulnerable and caothic as a worried writer obsessed with finishing their second novel and their traumas. A very recommended production for fans of horror movies in the seventies. This is a very rarely piece of blood, suspense and sex that today follows provoking a really commotion in audiences.