"Exam" is a one-room movie that explores the human psyche. It's a "What Would You Do?" on steroids.

Eight applicants are put into a room with 80 minutes to answer the one exam question, except there's no question seen on their exam sheets. They have to follow three simple rules or else they're disqualified:

1.) Don't spoil your paper.

2.) Don't try to communicate with the guard or the invigilator

3.) Don't voluntarily leave the room.

With these three known rules the test-takers began dissecting their environment around them as well as each other (figuratively) in order to find out what the one question is so they can give the one answer. It was both tense and annoying. You already know at least one character is going to grate your nerves, and in this case just about every character grated my nerves. Still, I was intrigued and I wanted to see the movie through to the end.

Q.1. What are the biggest influences on Stuart Hazeldine's EXAM?

Q.2. Will the film disappoint those looking for a decent dose of graphic gore?

Q.3. Is there a flashback scene towards the end of the film that 'cleverly' reveals what the hell has been going on?

Q.4. Are there any plot holes/lapses in logic/moments of sheer stupidity that make this film hard to swallow?

Q.5. Express as a percentage the likelihood that the winner in the film will be a woman.

Q.6. If a person infected with the film's virus must take one pill every hour to stay alive, how many pills will he consume in a year?

Q.7. Is this film worth watching?

Q.8. What rating does the film deserve out of 10?

Answers

Q.1. Saw, Cube, TV's The Apprentice

Q.2. Undoubtedly. Although the film suggests that the candidates are competing for a 'job you would kill for', the level of violence is remarkably low.

Q.3. The first film mentioned in the answer to Question 1 is Saw; what do you think?

Q.4. Do bears do their proverbial in the woods?

Q.5. 100%

Q.6. 8760, provided he or she is able to wake up every hour, every night to continue the treatment—which is unlikely.

Q.7. Surprisingly, yes. Although the script is highly preposterous and raises many questions, the movie flows impressively in real time, the cast put in convincing performances, and director Hazeldine maintains a reasonable level of tension and intrigue throughout.

Q.8. 6.5/10 (rounded up to 7 for IMDb)—it's entertaining despite its obvious flaws.

Exam (2009)

What a bizarre movie. It's so beautifully filmed, almost virtuosic in its use of focus and close up and light, you almost forget that the plot is a highly contrived package of clever ideas. When you do think about the plot, and the various holes that open up in the logic of it, you are almost forced to enjoy it for the visuals. And for the acting, which has some real high points.

You also marvel at how the entire movie is shot in a single room (with a glimpse of hallway a few times). I suppose you might bow to the film's makers for pulling off so much with so little. The result is intelligent and a little bit suspenseful at its best moments. When it begins it is absolutely fascinating, from the opening scenes establishing the characters to the first laying out of the rules (although there is a drama that reminded me for some reason of "Deal or No Deal" at its tackiest). Then some of the characters break out of the futurist mode and we have normal people vying to win the game, the contest to be hired by the mysterious health products company behind the scenes. (This part will remind everyone of a stylized and a bit false seeming "The Apprentice" even to the point that you might wish for a Donald Trump to appear from behind the dark screen and prod them along.)

By the end, I think most people will either be a bit tired of it all, or mostly incredulous. It pulls out lots of tricks, and we are inevitably a little surprised by the final turns of events. But I'm not sure it lives up to the high standards set at the start. Get sucked in, sure, but be prepared to stick it out with effort.