Not engaging. Not interesting. A waste of film resources.
A poorly written mystery with no motive to the problem solving actions. What problem anyway? Do they ever discuss is logically? Nope, they just react ridiculously for the sake of a movie. Sure the words come out the characters mouths as to why tthey are doing what they are, but what's the motive? I expected a character to do a shit on the floor, after explaining how shit is made, hoping it was something to do with the exam. That's the logic for this job interview. Maybe a characer could jab pencils in their eyes because pf something someones said? What a bunch of morons. Then they question each to try try and have the insider rat feel to the story. Why? For the hell of it. There is zero indication of a rat. No motive again, just a terrible script.

There's a lack of realistic or logical conflict. Its just an arsehole character being a tit. I could forgive it all if the movie was entertaining but It's trying to be serious and clever. It's the equivalent of listening to drunk men in a pub who have all of lifes answers and you're thinking 'just shut up.'

Could not finish.

Exam is an entertaining movie about a stressful situation in a selection process. It could have been more interesting wouldn't it have been because it is deeply inspired in the original play El mètode Grönholm by Jordi Galceran and its following movie El método, by Marcelo Piñeyro, which are both much better.

A fun one-room mystery that keeps you entertained throughout. Read my full review here.

http://www.hweird1reviews.com/allreviews/exam-review

If you frequently do riddles, the answer is obvious from the very beginning but takes an extremely long time to resolve, including a slow motion cut at the end for a 'reveal' that left me nearly fast forwarding the video.

Vague spoilers:
[spoiler]
Not only that, but the ending also doesn't match up for me. This interview claims to be for a certain type of company, but the people who came closest to winning and the winner were arguably not the most qualified of the people in the group. I say arguably because clearly the characters (and thus the writers) seemed to agree the winner was the best choice of the lot, but the winner's actual actions and natural outcomes that happened as a result of them do not seem to align with what someone would want for the hiring position...
[/spoiler]

Bigger spoilers:
[spoiler]
The person in second place was a murderous sociopath, the person who won basically sat back and made vague suggestions while not doing much and allowing others to disqualified or even die (as far as she knew.) A leader, or administrator, needs to be able to make decisions, I'd think. Furthermore, two of the candidates who were disqualified were so because they were trying to help someone else, one of which who even has experience in the company. Making decisions rather than light suggestions--especially when someone is being tortured--seems more worthy of a leadership role to me.
What I believed would happen after learning the truth of the company, was a sequence of them going back to hire several of the disqualified agents, in essence, instead of behaving like the notoriously rejected google interview questions, this would have been the personality portion of the test--unrelated to any answers/victory.
Alternatively, if the company had been evil or something, it wouldn't have mattered what type of person (or the competence/willingness to take action thereof) made it to the end.
[/spoiler]

Overall, I enjoyed the movie, I just think the ending failed to impress.

Just finished watching this film without knowing anything about it beforehand. Its references to a pandemic somehow made it much more relevant to watch right now than it would have been back in the day when the film is released.

Somehow I expected a better, more clever ending to the film but it lacked that element. However, it was a good watch overall.

Would I watch it again? Probably not. Would I make my friends watch it? Yes.