Gary Wolcott (24 May 2012)

Quiet desperation has power. A look, a gesture and what isn't said often says more than reams of dialogue. Ordinary actors can't pull it off. Neither can ordinary directors.

Andrew Schenker (24 May 2012)

A sexy but largely unilluminating narrative that finally devolves into a fairly conventional thriller.

Chris Pengelly (23 May 2012)

Deceptive..

This is a movie that will leave you wondering: Can I get that hour anda half back? What were those actors thinking? Who could possibly thinkthat is was anything but the complete unadulterated rubbish that it is?I haven't seen the original version and I won't bother, this has put meoff bothering.As subtle as a drunken football fan the plot twists in this movie wereas well covered as a petrol tanker doing a 180. The dialogue was aswell delivered as that newspaper the dog savaged in the letterbox. Thefilm was kept interesting by the bap count and nothing else.Seriously, unless you have an unnatural and unhealthy appetite for theboobs of the unobtainable Hollywood A list, leave well alone. Erotic?My harris. Thriller? To be fair I staid awake for the whole film (itwas the boob thing).If you must watch it make sure you give yourself plenty of time tocontemplate all of those life questions that other people have writtenabout in their reviews - watch after midnight on a work night, that wayyou may fall asleep and miss some of it.

(22 May 2012)

Not For Squeamish!

This review is from: Chloe [Blu-ray] (Blu-ray) Erotic, Off-Beat Thriller! I am reminded that "Boogie Nights" was Julianne's Break-out! Atom Egoyan has not lost his edge! Not for the kiddies!

(22 May 2012)

Erotic Thriller/Character Drama, with Great Performances...

Atom Egoyan's "Chloe" will not appeal to all tastes, despite a healthy dose of eroticism (and tasteful nudity), as it is really an examination of love, aging and insecurity, and how our imagination fills in the blanks when passion wanes. The thriller aspect is actually quite predictable, and a bit disappointing, but it doesn't take away from what truly makes the film work; the terrific triangle of Julianne Moore, Liam Neeson, and, in a breakout performance, Amanda Seyfried, in the title role.Moore is a gynecologist slipping into middle age, with a still-hunky college professor husband (Neeson), and a teen-aged son who hates her (Max Thieriot, in a role which, unfortunately, largely ended up on the cutting room floor). When hubby skips out on his surprise birthday party, and she finds a photo of him with a sexy student on his cell phone, she assumes the worst; rather than simply confront him, she hires a cute young prostitute (Seyfried), to seduce him, and prove his infidelity. Seyfried confirms Moore's darkest fears, saying that he, albeit reluctantly, responded to her advances. Rather than cut things off, however, Moore, aroused by the thought of her husband's actions, pays to continue the seduction. A bizarre romantic triangle plays out; the hooker provides erotically-charged, graphic details, while becoming increasingly attracted to the wife, who, in her anguished, yet obvious physical arousal by the accounts, responds to the sexual advances of the hooker. Seyfried conveys all this with a combination of sexual savvy and wide-eyed wonder, and watching her bend the sophisticated Moore to her own sexual will, leading to a very intimate, well-played seduction scene, is ultimately, the real climax of the film.Unfortunately, the plot then slides into melodrama, involving the husband and son, loads of guilt, unrequited love, and predictable tragedy. It is a let-down, as I said, but certainly doesn't ruin the overall pleasure of this film.Atom Egoyan's films are always well-crafted and provocative; this is a rare case of the director working from someone else's screenplay (by "Secretary" screenwriter Erin Cressida Wilson), and the end result, while flawed, is still superior to most of what I've seen on screens over the past couple of years. Certainly worth owning!

Chris_Docker (21 May 2012)

Layered interiorisation, the structure of fantasy, and a valuable commentary on the process of love and relationships

Chloe is a high class prostitute whom Catherine, a married woman, hiresto tempt her husband, to see if he can be tempted, and because shesuspects him of having an affair. It is not a good plot. But in thiscase it is brought a higher level by exquisite acting and direction,not to mention a screenplay by acclaimed writer Erin Cressida Wilson,who scripted Secretary, and Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus.Those were not exactly everyday 'believable' scripts either: but theywere made believable within context. So although the film is an eroticthriller, it has more in common with studies such as Godard's "Two orThree Things I Know About Her," or Soderbergh's "The GirlfriendExperience." It is a collection of ideas, woven into a tapestry thatmakes a story that is more 'watchable' than either of those two films,yet develops more insights into suppressed sexual tension, the uses andabuses of fantasy, and the needs for love, quite often unsatisfied,experienced by people in very different situations and walks of life.Chloe is a remarkable movie from an acclaimed art-house director.Viewing it in standard (passive) entertainment terms will not work sowell. May I also strongly recommend the DVD to readers? Rather than theusual DVD rubbish extras, it contains quality interviews with the threemain stars, background information and, most importantly, deletedscenes and alternate endings that throw great light on the differentthemes within the film itself.

Neil Miller (20 May 2012)

Amanda Seyfried's performance is gripping and seductive, as is Julianne Moore's. Egoyan achieves great tension through methodical character development and unflinching style.

Kevin McCarthy (20 May 2012)

Chloe is a bit of a mess when it comes to the story-telling but Moore and Seyfried deliver enough hot chemistry to keep an audience's interest until the final moments.

tabuno (19 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.

(19 May 2012)

Not sweet Sophie

This review is from: Chloe (DVD) I purchased this movie on DVD to see more of Amanda Seyfried's work which reveals that she usually does bizaar stuff. In this film she basically spins a web of lies and deceit that eventually catch up with her. This is actually a high powered movie with Liam Neeson and Julianne Moore as the central characters. This is not sweet Sophie from "Letters to Juliet".

(17 May 2012)

Mistrust, like many doors, sees us sometimes walk through

A chance meeting sets some things into motion - one of those being the testing of a husband's faith. See, a married man misses a flight home, missing his surprise party in the process. This makes his wife wonder what he was up to, and a text with a picture of a young girl makes her wonder even more. solution: in the bathroom, on a night out, the wife meets a girl named Chloe. She seems nice enough and claims to be clean and that sets the wife's mind into motion. she decides to take Chloes and get her to tempt her husband. The problem is that she doesn't know Chloe or know anything about what she wants at all, making things turn out to be - complex and then some.When I sat down to watch Chloe, I thought I had already seen a million movies like it. The cheating husband and the not-so-blind wife, the person hired to bring it all into focus, and then the drama. The problem was that this is not the story at all - it only seems to be.I personally liked the cast to this movie and, honestly, I thought the twist with excellent. I cannot talk about it much, but can say with certainty that I really didn't see it all coming. There were a few parts i thought I knew and a few i could have guessed, but this movie was complex because humans are complex. It also talks about so many things that we forget; sometimes there can be purity in so many things, emotions in even the toughest seeming rock, and when we forget that we sometimes forget pieces of who we want to be.If you have yet to see this movie, you shouldn't wait. It is good and it is interesting and it can surprise you. I watched with singularity in my focus, not knowing, and the end paid me back for that. I personally laughed when i noticed how wrong I was, too, and thought "I am soo glad I caught this." Watch it and see what I mean - you will be drawn into it all when you see the thing in action.

(16 May 2012)

Chloe

Chloe... An excellent & haunting movie. I love it. It is an odd movie. It has a great cast and really enjoyable. I loved the plot. It has good soundtrack and the movie is by far one of the bests of 2010. It was really good. It keeps you on the edge of your seat. It's kind of like a Lifetime movie, but dirtier. This movie will be on the LMN (lifetime movie network), but it won't be the same without it's explicit (but fits into the story) language and scenes. It's a must buy.

Katie Sirles (16 May 2012)

Chloe is lackluster at best.

What do you get when you take a suspicious wife, a vacant husband, ascoundrel of a son, and a Jezebel? You get Chloe. The only good thingabout this movie was that it eventually comes to an end. Getting to theend was tiresome. Julianne Moore plays Catherine Stewart, agynecologist who lives in abundance. Her office is beautiful withsprawling views of Toronto. Her house is simply absurd in itsluxuriousness. Her husband, David Stewart (Liam Neeson), is a collegeprofessor. He appears preoccupied much of the time.The film opens with Chloe (Seyfried) dressing in front of a mirror. Avoice-over tells us that she is essentially a call girl who can makeyour wildest dreams come true. The predictability in this film isoverwhelming. The so-called "plot twists" are visible from miles away.This movie might have been a good idea had it been executed properly.Unfortunately for the audience, that is not the case. Director AtomEgoyan either tried too hard or didn't try at all. Perhaps he thoughtthat having a young beauty, a vintage beauty, and Liam Neeson wouldcarry the film all by itself. Whoops.So Catherine throws a big surprise party for David. Only, David"accidentally" missed his flight home from wherever it was that he wasteaching that night. Uh huh. The following day, Catherine finds David'scell phone and a text message from one of his young students that reads"Thanks for last night." Ominous, I guess. Basically the movie istrying really hard to make us believe that David is cheating.Meanwhile, Catherine is dealing with her son, Michael (Max Thieriot)whose role in the movie is essentially pointless. He won't listen to aword his mother says and I don't believe we see him interact with dadeven once.Feeling hopeless and lost, Catherine seeks out Chloe, who she's seengoing into the hotel next door to her office with her clients. She paysChloe to seduce her husband and see if he will take the bait. The restof the movie is Chloe and Catherine arranging secret meetings todiscuss what happens when Chloe meets with David. Listening to AmandaSeyfried describe what her character and David do together isdisturbing at best. She has the face of a 12-year-old and the voice tomatch. The graphic detail coming from the baby-faced Seyfried was toomuch and simply off-putting.Big time spoilers coming up. If you haven't seen this waste of time andstill want to, don't read on.After Chloe meets Catherine in a hotel room claiming to have just sleptwith David there, Catherine loses all the marbles she had left andsubsequently hops into bed with Chloe. Shocker. Not. The scene isunsettling at best. Afterwards, the two hop in a cab together andCatherine goes home. She comes in late and apparently thisautomatically means to David that she has been, without a doubt,cheating on him. They get into a big fight blah, blah, blah.Catherine calls Chloe and asks that she meet her. Waiting for Chloewith a snifter in hand, Catherine greets David whom she has called awayfrom work for this meeting. Chloe walks in and as she is approachingthe table where her lady-love is seated, she sees David is there too.David turns around to see who his wife is staring at and doesn'tflinch. Surprise! He has no idea who Chloe is! Chloe made it all up! Igently placed my head in my hands at this moment and wept for theperson who pitched this idea and the other person who agreed to it.Chloe then runs right over to the Stewart household where Michael isstrumming his guitar. He glances up, sees her, and the two make theirway up to the master bedroom. Meanwhile, Catherine comes clean to Davidand they reconcile. Yay. He has to go finish up at work and she hurrieshome to wait for him. She walks in to find a sleeping Chloe in her bedwith her son. In a desperate attempt to give the movie a twistedending, Chloe and Catherine argue and thankfully, finally Chloe managesto fall out the window and die. Huzzah! Julianne Moore now has twostrikes in my book. One for The Kids Are All Right and one for thiswretched excuse for a film. Liam Neeson gets a pass because this moviewas filmed right around the time that his wife passed and I normallyenjoy his work. It would've been wise to replace him with someone elseif possible. Amanda Seyfried has yet to blow me away in a role and thatstands true after this mess. Yikes.

Cole Smithey (16 May 2012)

You couldn't hope for a higher caliber sexploitation movie than "Chloe," even if the sex thriller falls flatter than a day-old quiche.

Robert Levin (06 May 2012)

The movie is entertaining and undeniably sexy, filled with an atmosphere charged by lust and desire.

scarletminded (06 May 2012)

Watching this twice made me realize how excellent it is.

I was skeptical about liking this movie. I liked Erotica, but wonderedif this movie would be a bit too much like Fatal Attraction, looking atthe trailer. I rented it anyway, because I like Julianne Moore's actingand also how Amanda Seyfried looks otherworldly in this, like a fairytale character. But I feel that is what this movie is about. It's morea drama then the thriller the trailer makes it out to be. It has amysterious quality to it and is ambiguous, letting the viewer decidewhat is going on in the film.It starts out straight forward enough...Julianne Moore's characterCatherine thinks her husband is cheating on her so she hires Chloe,played by Amanda Seyfried, to set up a scene where she meets thehusband and sees if the husband makes a pass at her. As thingsprogress, an erotic element is added as Catherine lives out her eroticside lost to her husband through Chloe's stories of her sexualinteraction with Catherine's husband. Then Chloe begins to fall forCatherine, while Catherine, being controlling, was only in it to pay aprostitute in a way that she could retrieve her lost sexuality. At first, I was sort of angry with the ending. Because I always feelthat in films with lesbian scenes in them, that one of the peopleinvolved dies, like it is a metaphor that sexuality outside the normalfamily life Catherine has is wrong and therefore Chloe is a predator ofthe family...OK, it's all Fatal Attraction...I won't be ignored! But watching it a second time on DVD with the commentary and alsowatching the deleted scenes which I think add to understanding thestressful relationship between Catherine and her son, made me realizehow much of this movie could be in Catherine's head. Like Chloe mightnot exist or exist as metaphor or fantasy. At the same time, she couldbe real. There is also the point of who is lying and telling the truthin this film. Is Chloe really having erotic adventures with Catherine'shusband or is she making it up? Is she really a prostitute? She doeshave a quote in the beginning about being whomever a person wants herto be...but she never says she's a prostitute and she does take moneyfrom Catherine, but maybe she wants Catherine to think she is one. It'snever 100% clear. To me, Catherine's husband could be having an affairwith his student and Chloe too and could hide it well. I got that fromthe café scene where Catherine is with her husband and Chloe shows up,that maybe Catherine's husband has messed around with students andChloe and can hide it well. Or he could be telling the truth, that heonly flirts with students and has been 100% faithful to Catherine. Upto the interpretation of the viewer.On the outside, it does look like the typical erotic thriller, withpoor Chloe meeting her end Glenn Close style. In a nice way, reflectiveof foreign films, Chloe chooses to die, no one is killing her. She onlywishes for Catherine to save her in the end because Chloe loves her,but Catherine doesn't come through. In a way, Chloe has to die. She ismystery. She is metaphor. She becomes whatever the person who pays herwants her to be. But she also has her true feelings, a girl with amommy complex instead of a daddy complex, who finds her maternal loverin Catherine to replace the mom who left her. Catherine, at that point,wants Chloe out of her life, so she has no choice but to "vanish". Italso adds to the point that Chloe could be in Catherine's head sinceshe isn't there to interact with the son, the husband and Catherine,since in this world, Chloe has been with all of them.I highly recommend this film. Especially if you like the director'sother movies like Erotica. It makes me want to seek out other films hehas done and also the French version of this film which apparently hasless mystery. The sensuality in this film is top notch too. I was veryamazed by the imagery and how this film was shot. It's very lovely andsensual without being cheesy or stereotyped. It's in its own littleworld.

Michael Phillips (02 May 2012)

I enjoyed because the actors don't camp it.

Felix Yaroshevsky (02 May 2012)

Not "Daphnis and Chloe", but ......

The "midlife crisis" in a life of a couple turns into a tragic story of"fatal attraction" of a "borderline personality". What makes it allworthwhile is the exquisite performance by Julianne Moore. She savesthis rather less than perfect screenplay. Atom Egoyan in the sceneswhich follow the behaviour and nuances of Moore's character rises hisfilm to an almost a masterpiece quality. This writer experienced aresonance and excitement of observing a woman's love. Even thetriviality of an end of the film didn't create a disappointment becauseof the gratitude one experiences for those scenes. Sexual content ofthe picture doesn't feel erotic and is almost chaste and definitelytasteful. I was glad I went.

Serkan Okar (30 April 2012)

An Atom Egoyan Classic: erotic and suspenseful, intensely emotional

Catherine (Juliane Moore) suspects her husband David (Liam Neeson) ischeating on her so she hires a prostitute named Chloe (Amanda Seyfried)to test her suspicion. She pays her to seduce her husband. If herhusband is seduced, her suspicions would be justified. I think themovie successfully shows the conflict between deepest, subconsciousdesires and the limitation of social roles bound by moral conventions.There is always a chance the people may be taken hostage by theirdesires and no relationship (even a simple business transaction) iseasily dismissed. The movie raises the questions about marriage, loyalty, family anderotic desires. What should married couples do when they lose passionfor each other, the marriage becomes boring and they are tempted byoutside temptations? Should they follow their desires or stay loyal totheir social roles? I thought the story was very interesting and characters werewell-developed and realistic. Story portrays complex interactions amongmany characters, husband and wife, husband with other women, wife'srelation with the prostitute and the couple's son also thrown into themix. I felt that the actions of the characters were in line with theirpersonality. I think Atom Egoyan did a good job of showing the emotionsof the characters. Overall, I think the movie at least deserves arating of 7.

(30 April 2012)

Joseph2012

This review is from: Chloe (DVD) Suspenseful in beginning . The plot takes a surprise twist at the end. Both lead actresses are excellent and provide the whole movie. See if you can guess ending before last scenes