Customer Reviews

Chloe

5 star:		(23)
4 star:		(33)
3 star:		(18)
2 star:		(14)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

Atom Egoyan's new film Chloe tells a story that's been told many times before, the tale of the woman scorned. But the new perspective that Egoyan brings to the erotic thriller genre, that makes it more original and provocative than any film I've seen this year.

Julianne Moore's portrayal of the heroine, Catherine Stewart, is near perfect. Moore has really been at the top of her game lately. In A Single Man, she played a character that she also brought great depth to, despite having only about fifteen minutes of air-time. In Chloe, she plays an upper middle-class gynecologist, who has been married to David (Liam Neeson) for many years. She suspects that he's having an affair, after noticing his flirtacious banter with a waitress, and after missing a flight, and his surprise birthday party. And just like that, her long simmering suspicions rise to the surface.

Finding no answer other than infidelity, she hires an escort, played by Amanda Seyfried, in the title role, to seduce her husband, to see his reaction. She finds herself "directing" she and her husband's encounters, giving Chloe notes on how to react to certain things that her husband says and does. Ergo, the fireworks start, and needless to say, lies are told and people get hurt.

This is Julianne Moore's best work in years. She has a knack for giving emotionally devastating performances, and she's in top form here. Her ability to say so much with saying so little, never ceases to amaze me. But the true star here is Amanda Seyfried, who gives the performance of her career. Her repertoire includes mostly comedies, like Mean Girls and Mamma Mia, but the amount of dramatic depth that she brings to the table is unbelievable. Playing a complicated character, you never know what her next move is, and it's interesting to see where it goes, ultimately until the earth-shattering conclusion. Seyfried's large, expressive eyes, tell you what her character is going through, and it's another case, where so much is said, when so little is actually spoken. The supporting cast, of course, includes Liam Neeson, who is always excellent, as Catherine's philandering husband, and he essentially does his job. There's not a whole lot of room in this picture, for his character to evolve. More attention is paid to the female leads.

What separates this from the countless stories of mistrust and infidelity, is the eerie and surprisingly profound tone that Egoyan brings to the table. It's a very mature, classy, smart film that deals with trust, loyalty, and love, and how, after so long, love can vanish, and an emotion can take over that you never would have expected to feel. And plus the settings are gorgeous. Jim Lambie, the set decorator of films like Heaven on Earth, and Egoyan's Adoration, brings a modern sense of traditionalism to the look of the film, especially the main setting of the Stewart household. And, also, the score, masterfully composed by Mychael Danna, brings out so much emotion, and tension to the table. Shattering orchestra crescendos, in pivotal scenes, bring more feeling, and intensity to the overall tone of the picture.

But, in the end, it's Egoyan's patient and thoughtful pacing, and an excellent performance by Amanda Seyfried that really stand out. It's a very mature, intricate experience that takes its time with developing each character, and brings a stunning conclusion that sets it apart from other stories of its kind. Its portrayal of lust and erotic desire, and the vulnerability of love, itself, will leave you breathless. Egoyan's use of an elegant, gliding camera, traps his characters against windows and mirrors, to signify how trapped a person can feel in their own life. And Egoyan's ability to never tell a story on one level, and his knack for adding layer, after layer to each character, makes the effect that the film has all the more effective.

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.

i thought it had a really good cast and that the dynamic between the characters was really good too. it was nice to see amanda seyfried doing a new kind of role and she did an excellent job at portraying "chloe". julianne moore is pretty much awesome in whatever she does and this was no different. liam neeson wasn't there for some of the shooting because of natasha richardson's skiing accident; but he managed to film all his scenes over a short period of time. i thought this movie was very good (including the storyline) and very sexy too. you aren't really sure what is going on (the truth) until near the end of the movie. the sex scenes are also very hot. i recommend at least giving it a chance and not to be fooled by the negative reviews.

The reason I rented this movie was because I admire Liam Neeson's and Julianne Moore's acting skills, and loved Amanda Seyfried's performance in Big Love and Mamma Mia! The plot of the story is predictable enough - a middle-aged couple played by Moore and Neeson are experiencing some strains in their marriage and their teenage son is totally self-absorbed. Then Moore mets Chloe (Seyfried) in the ladies' room whilst at dinner with her husband. The viewer senses an immediate connection and when Moore suspects her husband of cheating on her, she asks Chloe to seduce him to see his reaction. Well, Chloe plays along with this charade, and gives a blow-by-blow of her sexual encounters with Neeson's character, much to Moore's initial mortification and eventual turn-on (yes, apparently she gets off on hearing about their sexual exploits).

The story then takes a dark turn (well, darker) when Chloe begins to get obsessed with Moore's character, an obsession which is reciprocated to a certain extent. There's some sexual encounters between both women which initially struck me as weird but then slowly began to make sense. Chloe is a complex character, in fact I think her character was the most complex of the three. There is definitely a hint of an abandonment complex, a sense of emptiness within Chloe which she feels can only be assuaged with Moore. The clue here is the hair pin which Chloe keeps and later presents to Moore as a gift. In the deleted scenes, there's more background information provided which enables the viewer to understand the motivations of the characters which I wish had been portrayed in the movie.

The acting is wonderful as can be expected from two experienced actors and a talented up-and-coming actor. I just wish the storyline had been more credibly dealt with. Little things annoyed me too - the portrayal of Moore and Neeson's son as an accomplished pianist and also a hockey player? Not many pianists I know would risk their precious hands playing a potentially risky sport. That aside, there was also some awkwardness in the performance of the teen son. This could have been a complex, erotic thriller but it fell short to me.

I'm a sucker for any film with Julianne Moore (A Single Man), and I'm a Liam Neeson fan, too, as in Taken (Single-Disc Extended Edition). After watching Amanda Seyfried in Mamma Mia! The Movie (Widescreen), I became intrigued by her skills as well.

I thought about the aspects of this film that appealed to me the most. I noticed that Julianne Moore's characterization of the wife suspecting her husband was somewhat unusual. She was detached, unemotional, and almost as if she were totally unaffected by the outcome, whatever it might be.

But as we drew further into her psyche and her connections, I began to realize that this somewhat "scientific" approach was in character for Catherine, the doctor; the woman, the betrayed wife, would appear later. At that time, we would see her feelings, her insecurities, and how much she mourned the connection she once had with her husband.

What we do learn, too, is that Chloe's version of events, as she describes them to Catherine, are not necessarily the truth. Perhaps it is the truth as she sees it. We come to understand her motivations more as we near the end of the story.

Psychological suspense keeps this film moving, taking us to some unexpected places.

What will Chloe do in the end to ratchet up the thrills for the viewers? And how far will Catherine go to protect what is hers?

This is not a movie for the faint of heart or those who like pretty Hollywood endings. But I was not bored during any part of this one, and as the thrills unfolded, I was excited and rooting for more.

I loved the settings, too, and could tell right away that this was not an American city. At the end, I learned that it was filmed in Toronto.

I would give Chloe four stars.

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!

There are numerous fatal attraction movies out there, and you're thinking who needs another? How many Rocky sequels (7) do we need, right? As every movie takes some aspects from its predecessors, the majority of movie releases are rarely original material, and hence exist a degree of predictability. But somehow this flick is one grabs you and with an artistic creation that impacts your mind, and will still linger.

The French is the unmatched nativity of erotic thrillers, so the Americans had to borrow some of Nathalie (this movie's predecessor), and it worked out brilliantly here. Add that to smooth, natural characters who play so well, they're all very believable, and a plot where a thin line exists with every decision these characters make. The storyline is like a ride to place these characters as a catalyst or template to frame yourself in.

The whole premise or driving force is the irony that even though Catherine was being "cheated on," she was the one in power, control, and decision making (calling the shots) in the "business transaction" boss of hiring Chloe. Catherine had the div's (inside scoop) of her husband David's every actions/reactions. Chloe is weakened by the succumbed-damnation in her chain of desire for Catherine. However, it is Catherine who becomes snarled and tangled in her own web. This futility is like a never ending battle of self desire, control and empowerment. And we the audience are sucked in as well. I'll leave the rest of the details for your own unearthing.

What made the story so believable is the incredible all around production of this movie, from the flawless acting, to the directing (Atom Epoyan), and impeccably perfect blu ray HD picture. Any old home can be remodeled and updated to modern style, so can an outdated crafted redo of Fatal Attraction 1987 subjected to an extreme makeover transformation into Chole 2010 storyline, made to succeed in any movie weekend night attention.

This all-star cast is ideal for their roles: Catherine (Julieanne Moore) plays an OBGYN doctor, David (Liam Neeson) a college professor, and Chloe (Amanda Seyfried) escort. Highly recommended. Blu-ray extras has 2 deleted scenes, a trailer, plus a 25-min "behind the scenes, making of" clip. Perfect 1080p transfer.

I saw a trailer of this movie on the internet and it was the kind of movie that I like. It's a story with mystery and turns out in the end with a twist. It keeps you guessing and wondering the whole way through. Liam Neeson knows how to pick out movies. He's always in movies that are like this.

Okay so i had imagined something a taf bit different. But when i recieved this product i watched that night and thought it was amazing, it had such a talednted cast, and amazing story line, and great acting. This movie is deffinatly not a family movie, but a great one to watch by yourself or with a date. This movie is truely amazing and i will deffinatly be telling my freind's and family about this gem!

Dr. Catherine Stewart (Julianne Moore) is suspicious that her husband, college professor David (Liam Neeson), is doing more than flirting with his students. Given the lack of warmth emanating from her husband and the open disdain of her son, Michael (Max Thieriot), Catherine's best move would be to just pack up and leave. But instead, she comes up with the bright idea of hiring a call girl, Chloe (Amanda Seyfried), to tempt her husband and report back with the details. Let us just say that things do not go the way Catherine hopes in this erotic thriller. Catherine is a gynecologist and early on she tells a patient that an orgasm is just a series of muscular contractions. The statement strikes me as the type of hubris exhibiting by the doomed heroes in Greek tragedies. The 2009 film begins with a voice over by Chloe, in which she explains how adept she is at giving her customers what they want. Chloe has as much faith in her abilities as Catherine lacks faith in her husband. David's character is a minor figure in the story, with his words and actions being inherently ambiguous, so we are always thinking maybe he did but maybe he did not, but the story comes down to the two women (think Alfred Hitchcock's "Suspicion," but with Cary Grant playing a minor character instead of the male lead). The key question is what does Catherine want out of this test of her husband's fidelity? Because whatever it is, Chloe is bound and determined to provide it.

A strength of the film is that Erin Cressida Wilson, who did the screenplays for "Secretary" and "Fur - An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus," came up with this script from the French film "Nathalie." I have not seen the original, but Wilson has a talent for unusual love relationships, although what we have in "Chloe" is far and away the most normal one she has tackled to date. Atom Egoyan ("Exotica," "The Sweet Hereafter") certainly wants viewers to be ahead of Catherine, so there is a sense from early on of waiting for Catherine to catch up before it is too late. The musical score cues you in that things are darker than they seem. But what sold me on checking out this movie as soon as it came out on DVD when I saw the trailer was the cast. In the wake of "Mama Mia!" it seems Amanda Seyfried is in every other movie, especially if they involve letter writing (i.e., "Dear John" and "Letters to Juliet"), but there are those who want to see more of her and this movie certainly delivers on that score. Chloe is the darkest role she has played to date, and it is no surprise at this point that she can hold her own against Moore, whose character you can see shatter just by watching her eyes.

It is when Chloe reaches her own breaking point in this film that I start questioning a lot of what is happening. The Chloe of the end game is decidedly different from the one we first meet and who becomes part of Catherine's secret conspiracy. As the credits rolled I was going backwards from the end to rethink everything in terms of how things played out, and it did not fit as neatly as I would like it to under the circumstances. A standard problem in most thrillers and horror movies is that the payoff is never up to the setup, and ultimately that is the case here and I ended up rounding down on "Chloe" because of the title character's fate. Still, "Chloe" is well-written and well-acted adult fare, and there is not much out there these days that can meet that standard. Although things could have gotten much worse, just keep in mind that this is not a good date movie.