White (Luke Mably) watches tensely from his desk as other candidates sit behind him
Film review

Exam

2009 · Directed by Stuart Hazeldine · 1h 41m · MPA NR

In a sentenceAn eighty-minute exam that runs 101 minutes, and the clever answer arrives after half the class has stopped listening

Eight candidates in interview suits are shown into a windowless room for the final stage of selection at a company whose name they are never given. The Invigilator (Colin Salmon) states the rules: one question, one answer, 80 minutes; anyone who spoils their paper, speaks to him or the armed guard (Chris Carey), or leaves is disqualified. He starts the clock and goes. The papers are blank. White (Luke Mably), the loudest, names the others by their looks: Black (Chukwudi Iwuji), Brown (Jimi Mistry), Blonde (Nathalie Cox), Brunette (Pollyanna McIntosh), Dark (Adar Beck) and Deaf (John Lloyd Fillingham), who sits silent in the corner. They have 80 minutes to find a question nobody has asked, and one of them has already been walked out.

Fi1m review

Stuart Hazeldine’s one-room thriller has a first-rate idea and a first-rate opening half hour. After that the writing thins, the acting gets loud and the ending shrugs. Worth a look for the setup, if you are the puzzle sort.

Stuart Hazeldine’s first film puts eight people in a room for the last round of a job interview and hands them an exam with nothing printed on it. That is a fine idea for a thriller, and for its first half hour Exam makes the most of it. Then the candidates start talking, and Hazeldine’s own script, which set the trap so neatly, cannot think of enough for them to say. It is a good premise that becomes an average film.

The opening is close to perfect. Colin Salmon’s Invigilator walks in and delivers the rules in the tone of a man who has given this speech many times and enjoyed it: one question, one answer, 80 minutes; spoil your paper, speak to him or the armed guard (Chris Carey) at the door, or walk out, and you are finished. He starts the clock and leaves. The papers are blank. We grinned at that; it is the right size of trick, small and enough to carry an hour if handled well. Within minutes one candidate (Gemma Chan) has written on her paper and been escorted out, and the rest have understood that the test has already begun.

Luke Mably’s White takes charge and hands out names by appearance: Black (Chukwudi Iwuji), Brown (Jimi Mistry), Blonde (Nathalie Cox), Brunette (Pollyanna McIntosh), Dark (Adar Beck) and Deaf (John Lloyd Fillingham), the silent man in the corner nobody thinks to ask. Mably plays White as a salesman who has decided cruelty is confidence with the volume up, and his is the one performance with enough shape to hold the camera for the full length. Iwuji’s Black is the steady, decent man opposite him, and their argument over whether the group should work together gives the film its best stretch. They try the lights. They try the sprinklers. For a while the place is a puzzle and we were happy to be locked in it.

Patrick Bill designs the set as a dark box with eight desks, each under its own lamp, a clock on the wall and a guard at the door. Tim Wooster lights the desks and lets the walls fall away, so you lose any sense of where the space ends, and when the candidates kill the lights the only things left are faces. Rebecca Gore puts everyone in the dark suits they would have put on for the day, so they look alike until they start behaving badly. Stephen Barton’s score ticks and pulses under the talk and knows when to stop. Mark Talbot-Butler cuts close to real time without pretending to it, and the clock never cheats.

Somewhere past the hour the film stops being about the question and starts being about which of these people is worst, and the dialogue, tight when it had rules to recite, goes slack when it has to carry feeling. People shout. People say what they are thinking in complete sentences. A piece of backstory about the company and the illness outside arrives as if somebody had just remembered the film needed stakes. Two of the performances climb to a pitch that would be too much on a stage, let alone two feet from a lens. We went from leaning forward to watching the clock, and it was the film’s own clock, which did not help.

The last ten minutes reach an answer we will not describe. We can say that the solution to the paper is neat and fair in hindsight, and that the second reveal stacked on top of it will have been visible from the middle of the film to anyone who has seen a thriller before. Hazeldine treats the second as the bigger surprise.

The one-room thriller is a strict form. 12 Angry Men (1957) got 96 minutes out of a jury table because every man at it was a person before he was an argument. Cube (1997) had thin characters and knew it, so it kept the traps coming. Exam wants the people of the first and the mechanism of the second and manages about half of each. Hazeldine can plainly direct; his next film needs another writer in it.

Watch it at home with someone who likes puzzles and does not mind being shouted at, and agree beforehand not to guess out loud. It runs 101 minutes, carries a 15, and the best half hour is the first.

Critical consensus AI synthesised

65
Positive
5
Mixed
6
Negative
1

Most critics agree on the premise, and most of them like it. Eight job candidates locked in a secure room with a countdown strikes nearly everyone as a sharp idea, and the reviews keep returning to the same words: claustrophobic, clever, lean. Hazeldine’s direction gets credit for making a stage-bound setup feel like a film rather than a filmed play, and several notices call it a confident debut. Luke Mably is the performance singled out most often, praised for charisma and warmth in a cast that otherwise divides opinion.

The ending is where they part. The Guardian finds the pay-off a shaggy-dog anti-climax, Den of Geek thinks the premise is squandered by blunt writing, and Eye for Film calls the second twist obvious and the acting shrill. Even admirers concede the middle gets talky and the sudden violence jars. The spread is wide, from warm trade and festival notices down to a few cold ones, with the mixed camp the largest.

Variety
17 February 2010 · festival review · Lael Loewenstein
88*

The critic gives the film a strongly positive verdict, praising how it sustains tension and keeps viewers guessing. She particularly singles out Hazeldine’s direction, which makes a confined, theatrical premise feel cinematic.

Read the full review →
Total Film
21 December 2009 · ★★★★ · Total Film
80

The review finds the film a sharp, inventive thriller that dips in the middle but ultimately succeeds. It praises Hazeldine’s eye for detail and the way the countdown keeps audiences guessing, while objecting to the sudden violence.

Read the full review →
Empire
30 December 2009 · Nev Pierce
75*

The critic finds this an assured, engaging debut, though some performances are creaky. Luke Mably’s charismatic, empathetic performance is singled out for praise.

Read the full review →
The Hollywood Reporter
15 July 2009 · festival review · The Associated Press
70*

The critic finds the chamber-piece tense and darkly comic, though its pandemic subplot feels artificially added. The actors, especially Luke Mably, and the clever final-act twists earn praise.

Read the full review →
Screen Daily
22 June 2009 · Allan Hunter
64*

The accessible page does not reveal the critic’s verdict. It also does not reveal what the critic singled out for praise or complaint.

Read the full review →
Radio Times
★★★ · Sloan Freer
60

The critic finds Hazeldine’s debut confident and its psychological thriller premise compelling. They praise its claustrophobic atmosphere and lean plot.

Read the full review →

Straight answers AI written, from our review

Is Exam worth watching?
Exam is worth a look for its setup, and we scored it 57. Stuart Hazeldine's one-room thriller has a first-rate idea and a close to perfect first half hour, with Colin Salmon's Invigilator and Luke Mably's White carrying it. After the hour the writing thins, the acting gets loud and the ending shrugs, so it suits the puzzle sort more than anyone wanting a story.
How long is Exam, and what is it rated?
Exam runs 1h 41m and is rated NR by the MPA in the US. It is a thriller and mystery film.
Where can I watch Exam in the US?
Exam is streaming on AMC+, Tubi, The Roku Channel and Amazon Prime Video in the US, and it is also available to rent from Amazon Prime Video from $3.99. Availability is checked daily; the links above go straight to each service.
How violent or frightening is Exam, and is it suitable for children?
Exam carries a UK 15 and is a thriller of talk and tension rather than gore, with an armed guard at the door and candidates turning on one another in a locked room. The review notes shouting and cruelty rather than bloodshed, but it is not for children, and the pressure and menace will wear on the squeamish.
How does Exam compare to 12 Angry Men?
Exam is the weaker film beside 12 Angry Men, which is the one we recommend. Lumet's jury drama makes every man at the table a person before he is an argument, while Hazeldine's candidates are more mechanism than character and the dialogue goes slack once it has to carry feeling. Choose Exam if you want a puzzle; choose the older film for people worth listening to.
What should I watch after Exam?
After Exam, try 12 Angry Men (1957, Fi1m 91): Twelve men, one table, and every argument is a person first. Then Cube (1997, Fi1m 76): Strangers wake in a lethal maze; the trap matters more than the people, and it knows.

Cast

If you liked this, try…

  1. 12 Angry Men (1957, Fi1m 91)Twelve men, one table, and every argument is a person first.

  2. Cube (1997, Fi1m 76)Strangers wake in a lethal maze; the trap matters more than the people, and it knows.

  3. Fermat's Room (2007) · not on Fi1m yetSpanish mathematicians solve riddles while the walls close in on them.

  4. Coherence (2013) · not on Fi1m yetA dinner party, a passing comet, and a mystery solved by talk that earns its talking.

  5. The Platform (2019) · not on Fi1m yetA vertical prison, a descending table of food, and a blunter satire that lands harder.