BTMalinowski

23 May 2012

Loved it!

Thrilling erotic adventure with some of the best acting we've seen outof Amanda Seyfreid to date! The direction lulls you in to a wild rideas more of the plot is revealed. MUST SEE. It was so enjoyable to seeToronto finally shot AS TORONTO. It is also noteworthy that Liam Neesoncourageously filmed a portion of this movie after the tragic death ofhis wife. With wild twists and turns. I saw this at the Toronto filmfestival and couldn't have been more pleasantly surprised by theresult. Also, keep an eye out for the up and coming actor Max Theriot.He's going to be someone to look out for. Julianne Moore also rings ina great acting performance with her great control of a woman who's lifebegins to spiral out of control.

Janos Gereben

23 May 2012

Chloe, a shallow, formulaic thriller that feels rushed and somewhat routinely slapped together, registers as a surprising disappointment.

patrick powell

21 May 2012

Entertaining enough, but in some ways something of a cop-out

I was rather taken with Atom Egoyan's Chloe until I read that it is aremake of a French film called Nathalie, which was released as recentlyas 2003. And that rather took the sheen off it for me. The premise isinteresting, though a tad far-fetched - wife believes her husband ischeating on her and hires a high-class call-girl to tempt him intofurther indiscretion so that she has solid evidence - and it does allsound rather French and 'sophisticated', but Egoyan's execution keepsup the suspense. Yet why bother with a remake? Doesn't the man haveenough ideas of his own? I haven't seen Nathalie so I don't knowwhether or not Egoyan adds anything. My guess is that he doesn't.Chloe (and, I suppose, Nathalie, although as I haven't seen it, I can'tcomment) is one of those films whose impact tends to evaporate withinminutes of the final moments. You could argue that, essentially, a filmis not obliged to go anything else but entertain for the duration, andChloe most certainly does that. But the films we remember and chose towatch again are those whose impact does linger and which, occasionally,gives us an insight we didn't before have. On that score Chloe mustsettle for a round nul points. I would argue that in view of what weare presented with for three-quarters of the film - professional womandiscovers to her surprise that she rather likes swinging both ways andmight well have engineered the whole 'my husband is cheating on me'scenario to allow herself an hour or two of sapphic pleasure - we areentitled to an insight or two. But we don't get them. Chloe ends -after an unforeseen and somewhat contrived shock - on a rather batheticnote and does so all too suddenly. Given Egoyan's reputation assomething of a highbrow director dude, that means Chloe is a miss. Andgiven that it is a remake, it must rank as a double miss. But don'tnecessarily let that put you off.Chloe rattles along quite nicely in its own way and watching twoattractive women making out doesn't distress you (and it didn'tdistress me) and if you are content with one or two other scenes ofsoft porn, Chloe fits the bill. But chalk it up as an entertainingnight in with a bottle of wine rather than anything brighter. Andremember that it is a remake. I rather suspect the original Nathalie,given the very French nature of the story, was rather better.

Jackpollins

21 May 2012

Fatal Attraction meets Basic Instinct? No, just some lousy rip-off

If I were to tell you that Chloe has a steamy scene between JulianneMoore and Amanda Seyfried (which it does), you might call someone crazywhen they then say it lacks the sexual tension that Fatal Attraction &Basic Instinct had so much of. Well, I am here to tell you both ofthose things are more than true. Chloe is a second rate erotic thrillerdirected by the very talented Atom Egoyan. Egoyan has made a lot ofgreat films. If you don't believe on that, watch Where The Truth Lies,Next Of Kin, & Felecia's Journey. The last 3 films I just mentioned arewell made films. They are also very entertaining. Chloe is not likethose films completely. While Chloe is a well made film, but it isultimately dull. It's the story of David & Catherine Stewart (LiamNeeson & Julianne Moore), a seemingly happy couple until Catherine seespictures & texts that implies David is cheating on her. She then hiresChloe (Amanda Seyfried) to try to start an affair with David todetermine whether or not he is actually willing to have an affair. Butthen Chloe starts to have sex with David, Catherine, and even theirson. The film becomes just plain dull, and the film uses overlydramatic music when it is not called for. It's no Fatal Attraction,it's no Basic Instict, because although with potential, unlike those 2films, this film runs out steam very, very quickly.

prince_c3

20 May 2012

Another Remake with Hollywood Twist

Well, I am not sure whether anyone here watches Nathalie(2003) FrenchMovie. Most of the peoples who post the reviews I guess haven't watchFrench movie Nathalie. It is almost remake of the same movie except theFrench movie grows on you with slow phase and Emmanuelle Beart who wasnot only very sexy and seductive but act much more maturely than AmandaSeyfried though I love Amanda as she is very sexy at times but if youhave watched Emmanuelle Beart you can see the difference, especiallywhen both Amanda knew what she is working on.Overall this is a remake of Nathalie with Hollywood twist to the plot,in spite of good acting by all three characters Liam, Juliane andAmanda, still I would recommend to watch the French Movie first.I am giving 5 star which I usually don't give for remakes.

tedg

20 May 2012

The Son

Thinking about film and how it works is made easier when you have twofilms that in some way are similar. Here we had an original French film that was really quite effective. Itpowerfully gave us the inner dance of two conflicting souls of theperformance of Woman. It was delicate, took fewer risks than we wouldallow, but impressed by its structure and intent.Now it is transferred to the English language, a transition thatusually and unnecessarily dulls the edges. The filmmaker is AtomEgoyan, who has made at least one essential film. I should say"director" rather than filmmaker because this has none of his preciseconfusion, none of his danger. He clearly is a director for hire, withsomeone else having commissioned a compete rewrite.We still have two women and a husband. We still have fragments of thesituation. But the whole thing is restructured. We no longer have aninner exploration, puzzlement, self- negotiation. We no longer explorehumanness. Now it is all external. These really are two competing womenin a traditional thriller model. Instead of allowing the structuraldrift into internal issues, we now have a son who plays an essentialrole, establishing an external observer.This is a mess. The writer previously did well in being and writing atortured woman. For some reason, the producers thought that was what"Nathalie" needed. Gosh, what a bad calculation! And that's withJulianne Moore, who could have made the original into life- alteringart.Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do withthis part of your life.

RNHunter

20 May 2012

Haunting..Deeply Interesting... Perhaps in an Odd Way

Since this movie both deals with very strong emotions, and as ithonestly also points out, very strong sexual content, right there willgive many people cause to be concerned about it. But assuming one canget passed that, I found the movie oddly haunting, oddly attracting inthe middle of all of those other items.One could argue that this movie at moments seems like Fatal Attractionrevisited, or that we are seeing the new version of the Robinson familyin the latest "Graduate" movie copy. I can see all of that. At momentsI also felt that way. But there was always something more that madethis unique - a reason why I could not stop watching it. I believe thereal issue was the way Amanda Seyfried played Chloe, a very uniqueseeming prostitute in this film. Well Chloe seemed more than that, solet me say Lady Escort or something nicer. While movies aboutprostitutes seem quite common, the way Amanda played Chloe I thoughtwas both wonderful and deep. She sort of forces you to care about her,as maybe no prostitute in the past. You want the best for her. At anyrate, I found the movie deep and haunting and much more impact than Iexpected. If you can deal with strong sexual content and be able tolook beyond it, you might find this movie... interesting. Only, cautionabout seeing it with your mother - unless your mother is a very openminded person.

Tom Keogh

19 May 2012

Egoyan keeps you wondering where fantasy starts and ends -- or if there's a fantasy at all.

Leigh Paatsch

16 May 2012

That this film takes so long to go off the rails -- when really, it could have been an instant train wreck -- is all down to Moore's poised portrayal.

Andrew L. Urban

16 May 2012

The premise doesn?t really hold water and our credulity is stretched, just as it was in Anne Fontaine?s 2003 original, Nathalie

HollywoodVixen90

14 May 2012

Erotic thriller that is a little confusing

I'm still undecided about how I really feel about this movie. For themost part I really am not too crazy about it. "Chloe" is definitely adifferent type of movie. "Chloe" is about Catherine, a woman who isconvinced that her husband is cheating on her, so she hires aprostitute to seduce her husband to find out if he really is anunfaithful man.I won't go into detail about everything that happens in the movie. Thismovie definitely has quite a few twists to it. However I did have asuspicion that Chloe was lying to Catherine. The movie in some ways wasa bit confusing, for example I'm not sure if David really did have anaffair with Miranda(the student in the beginning). I know David says hehas never cheated on Catherine but it's hard to believe he didn't sleepwith Miranda. I mean he calls Catherine to tell her he just missed hisplane and that he'll be late but then in the background you clearly seeMiranda walking towards David. Then of course there is the messageCatherine found on David's phone that shows a picture of Miranda withDavid saying "thanks for a great night"(or something like that). Also,David is such a flirt towards women, I highly doubt he has neverstrayed. Another thing that confused me is why did Chloe lie toCatherine about fooling around with David, and why did she lie aboutsleeping with David?? That was kind of a mystery to me. The ending wasalso quite confusing to me as well. I still haven't quite figured itout yet.I give this movie a 5 out of 10. I just didn't care for it too much. Iwas thinking this movie was going to be better than it was sinceJulianne Moore and Liam Neeson were in it, and they are both goodactors and are usually in good movies. I was pretty disappointedthough. I most likely won't watch this movie again and I know I won'tbe buying it but this movie helped me kill 96 minutes on a boring day.

Jason Anderson

13 May 2012

So histrionic that they might have escaped from the id of Joe Eszterhas, the events of the climactic reel shred any remaining vestige of dramatic credulity.

tabuno

05 May 2012

A Solid Family Drama that Lets Down

To director Atom Egoyan's credit he directs Chloe away from the actionthriller cliché and rather focuses as he did with THE SWEET HEREAFTER(1997) on the psychology and personality of the characters themselves,though disappointingly with almost the same impact in both movies.Nevertheless, Egoyan has brought to the screen a rather fascinatingcharacter study involving four characters in an erotic displayencompassing each of these characters or perhaps only three of themdepending on the interpretation of the movie. While unlike THE SWEETHEREAFTER the ending really avoids the more substantive and what wouldhave been a more satisfying and deeper look into adolescent psychologyand in which THE SWEET HEREAFTER seems to escape by a sudden ending andperhaps convenient that leaves much to be desired, in CHLOE a similardisappointing ending occurs by a simple script device that is typicalof family dramas which avoid the more muddy and less clear cut ending.Still there remains a number of assumptions as well as a weaker endingthat even still has loose ends so that the essence of the movie reallyeventually devolves on Chloe even though much of the focus at first ison the Stewart family. This is one of the movies of quality characters,a good script plot that never reaches its true potential as a classicfilm.

Matthew Toomey

05 May 2012

I'm not often a fan of remakes but this intriguing tale has been beautifully told by Oscar nominated director Atom Egoyan.

Jack Gattanella

05 May 2012

an intense drama about sexual identification and fantasy

Sometimes a story needs to just let its characters go where thesituation takes them. A situation isn't always conducive tostorytelling (telling a story vs. a situation), but in the case ofChloe it's the way to go. The situation here is this: a doctor(Julianne Moore) is suspicious, perhaps even certain in some way, thather husband, an opera teacher (Liam Neeson) is cheating on her. As away to find out, or just out of curiosity as to what he'll do, heapproaches a call-girl (Amanda Seyfried) who has a knack for fulfillingany client's desire. When Chloe asks this woman about her husband beingthe client, she says he isn't. Her job will be to approach him, simply,in a cafe and see what he does. But according to Chloe, an innocentconversation (him being "friendly" as he is with a lot of women) turnsinto something else entirely... or is it? This situation unfolds in a manner that is less about the conventional'what will happen to their marriage' than what will happen to Moore'scharacter, and Seyfried's Chloe, in relation to one another. It's onething to have a character having sex with one spouse, but then havingit with the other is something else. But that's not even what AtomEgoyan, the director, is fully interested in (although the sex scenes,when they do come up, usually from Moore's gynecologist imagining whather husband has been doing - and then herself actually with Chloe, arethe most seriously erotically charged ones seen in a while). Hisconcern, as a storyteller with this 'situation' is what is in the mind,what perception does to a married couple over time.Catherine can imagine David doing these things, and we as the audienceaccept this as what really happened because Chloe, as the in-chargegirl of the fantasy, makes it so. What do we perceive as who's wrong orright here, or is there even that issue? Eventually the movie Chloeturns into an obsession kind of story, where Chloe becomes enrapturedwith Catherine and their tryst together. A third-act revelation (Ihesitate to call it a twist) makes things a lot more clearer, but doesit matter if one sees it coming (I didn't, but I can see how suspicionscan be had right from the beginning). It's Egoyan's way of seeing thesepeople in these situations, how serious everything is taken but how itdoesn't become too trashy; only the music by Mychael Danna sees to makeit more of a sleek erotic drama when it doesn't need it (the best musiccue has nothing to do with him, but rather the cutaway from one crucialscene to the next where Catherine/David's son is playing a perfectlysomber piece of piano at a recital).One part of it is the camera, sliding along and pairing up the imageryin certain scenes (watch as Catherine is excited in the shower of theimage of David in the botanical garden, their juxtaposition isinteresting). But another crucial thing is the performances. Moore andNeeson deliver the goods, and we hope they always do (Neeson especiallyhas a very hard part, despite the supporting role as the husband, sincehe has to reveal what is necessary for Catherine to perceive, not somuch what is fully realistic), and the actor playing the son fares lesswell, though that may be due to him being underwritten (or just notwell written enough). But it's Seyfried who comes away here the realwinner; she's naturally sexy and appealing, and can convey Chloe'sability to play Catherine so well because it's what she does. She'syounger but wiser when it comes to intimacy and the power ofsuggestion, and the details in her descriptions, in the writing and theacting, is totally solid. We've seen Seyfried try, and sometimessucceed, more or less with material (i.e. Mean Girls and Jennifer'sBody), and here is where she really, fully gets to shine in athree-dimensional character.We know the players and we know how it might turn out, but you can't besure. Egoyan eschews a Fatal Attraction third act turn for something alittle more dangerous and exciting. I wasn't sure if Chloe was nuts, orjust got off on her own superior way of playing this family ofbourgeois Toronto-ites. It's about knowing what we know, and what wechoose to do with that information as a sexual partner, a lover, aperson, a friend, whatever, and that intimate fantasy element. It comesclose to trash, but it really isn't. Taking its flaws aside, it's oneof the smartest adult (though not pornographic) thrillers in recentmemory.

Matt Mueller

04 May 2012

Remaking the French hit Natalie, Atom Egoyan uses A-list trappings to fashion a B-movie romp that's sleek, slick - and not a bit silly. Seyfried gives Chloe the vital boost it needs.

LadyHol93

03 May 2012

Fantastic.

Being a huge fan of Amanda Seyfried I tend to see all her movies butthis one I didn't bother going to the cinema to watch purely because itwasn't showing and also I wasn't too bothered. So instead I bought iton DVD out of the blue and boy am I glad I did. Didn't really know what to expect but it was very good. Kept me hookedright to the very end and the twists the plot took were surprising andnot at all expected which is what I look for in a good film.Perfect cast. Never would have pictured Julianne, Amanda and Liam allin one film but it worked; especially Julianne and Amanda as aprospective couple. Amanda was spectacular as always and was just rightat playing the seductive other woman with her stunning looks. Was quitesurprised that she was partially naked for a couple scenes which isvery different for her (even mentioning in interviews that she wasn'tmajorly comfortable with it) but it does show how diverse her roles andacting abilities are. Its obviously a 15 due to the sexual content and i know many havethought it could have done without those scenes but honestly for me Ithink it was an important part in showing exactly how Juliannescharacter is doubting her sexuality and her marriage to her husband.It's not overly graphic and I think only a prude would complain aboutit. Brilliant cast; gripping storyline; a very good film in my opinion andhighly worth a watch.

aharmas

03 May 2012

Dangerous Beautiy

"Chloe" should stand for warning. An unhappy wife discovers through theuse of technology that her marriage could be in trouble. Deep at theheart of her problems is the lack of communication poisoning herfamily. Her estranged son rarely looks at her, and her husband seems tobe afraid of something.Soon enters "Chloe", a rather puzzling, mysterious, and fascinatingyoung woman who seems to be available to those who can afford hercharms. From the beginning, nothing is what it appears, and soonCatherine (Julianne Moore) decides it's time to make a deal with thedazzling Chloe. As things begin to progress, Catherine realizes herhusband's behavior might be more problematic than she suspected, andwith Chloe's help, it all seems to become clear.We expect events to get more complicated, and they certainly do, as thetwo women's relationship becomes a bit unhealthy. Seyfried is arevelation as the young lady of the evening, with more baggage than wethought possible. She envelops her preys in a rather nasty trap, and nomember of the family is left untouched. The film is short, and thedialog very simple, as lines are quickly delivered, but much is leftunsaid, left to the two actresses to fill in the gaps, as we seedesire, confusion, frustration, fear, anger, and guilt all come to thesurface.Somewhere stuck in the middle is David (Neeson), the man who we canquite understand or care much about. As things get nastier, it is ourfascination with self destructive relationship that we are concerned.Before we know it, things are going to get really bad, and eventuallythey all lead to a shocking conclusion."Chloe" is a study in desperation, obsession, and need to be desired,liked, and identity. It's hard to truly understand what leads the maincharacters to their self destructive affairs, and it's especiallyfascinating to see how "Chloe" opens up to Catherine in the openingscenes, and how she defies comprehension by the nature of her moves. Wenever really know where truth begins and fantasy/manipulation takeover.In the end it might not matter, as we slowly discover than the perfectfamily, with the gifted trio of a doctor mother, a seasoned professor,and a gifted child have flawed lives. Along comes someone who sets offa series of events that will allow them to learn more about themselves,might make them heal, or possibly might completely destroy their bonds.The film is more accessible than any of Egoyan's previous work, mightfail to please some people in the audience because it leaves us withmore questions than answers. It certainly seems to go by very quickly,as the director pieces the film together with very little backgroundscenes, and he just keeps jumping into the various scenarios with hesame recklessness than Catherine and Chloe do. Finally, one has toadmire how effective the film is, and we could only hope that somewherewe can find a resolution to these people's problems.

tyler-and-jack

02 May 2012

If you hire a woman to be a seductress then dont be shocked when she seduces.

I've never seen a movie from director Atom Egoyan before this one and,whether or not Chloe is typical of his style and skill, now I reallywant to delve into his past filmography.Juliane Moore plays the loving wife who suddenly has to face up to thefact that her husband (Liam Neeson) may be having an affair, or is atleast capable of it. To find out, one way or another, she hires theservices of a woman (Amanda Seyfried, playing the titular Chloe) totest him. But will the truth be something that she really wants toface? At times Chloe is a standard domestic drama but it's also a great blendof eroticism, passion and danger. The acting from all involved is great- Neeson gets the most thankless role but does well as a husband whoinadvertently pays more attention to other woman than he does to hiswife, Julianne Moore can do the uptight, emotional woman as well as anyother actress around and Seyfried is just superb as Chloe, a mix ofsexiness, sweetness and dangerous teasing (a woman who admits at thestart of the movie that she can be anything to anyone). There's alsoanother decent performance from young Max Thieriot, an actor I seem toenjoy in everything that he does.I haven't seen Nathalie yet (the original movie that Chloe is a remakeof) so I can't say what is directly taken from the source and what ischanged but I will say that Erin Cressida Wilson does okay with thewriting duties, working from Anne Fontaine's film, while every otheraspect does much more than okay. The score, the cinematography, theshot composition, all of these things and more are expertly supervisedby Egoyan and the resultant movie is a great one.

Adam Woodward

02 May 2012

While its European arthouse chic glosses over a less than commanding script, Chloe is nonetheless a mature, composed crisis piece that perhaps just doesn't push its audience as far as its characters.