sunshyn1976

(2012-04-30 12:18:06)

Seriously lacking a good script yet a decent watch

This movie doesn't have the most original plot and the last 15 minutesor so are all but unwatchable as the story gets wrapped up abruptly andway too simply. And yet, despite the lack of substance I can't stopwatching it.Amanda Seyfried is absolutely amazing in this film. Earlier this year Iwas wondering who is this girl and why is she suddenly in every movie?Now, I can understand why. She has an amazing ability to morph herlooks and attitude. She has the flexibility and range most youngHollywood starlets only dream of. She can be drop dead sexy, but shecan be believably nerdy (see Jennifer's Body)and insecure as well. Sheputs the thrill in this otherwise bland script.Julianne Moore delivers a decent performance as well. She plays anuptight control freak.(yes, again...sigh) She's a wife, mother, and ohyeah a doctor too. Living the charmed life but finding no satisfactionin it and feeling insecure. This would be a lot more believable if itweren't A) exactly what every American woman is being portrayed asthese days and B) coming from an actress so amazingly beautiful thatshe can do a nude scene with a woman half her age and you can't eventell their bodies apart. Note to Julianne-in your next movie, please behappy and carefree, I am so tired of seeing you stressed and crying.Really, even though the plot is predictable, it is overcome by theamazing performances right up until the last 15 to 20 minutes. At thatpoint, the plot gets so thin and pathetic that no actor can save it.*****SPOILER ALERT***** Let's see, despite all the evidence to thecontrary, Catherine's husband was never really cheating on her and theymake up and have a perfect marriage after only a five minute fight.Gee, if all relationships were that easy. Chloe we find is a bitobsessive and therefore has to be killed off conveniently and byaccident so that no one feels too bad about it. And Catherine stillwears Chloe's hair clip in the end. Why you ask? Did she really careabout her all along? Noooo, there couldn't be that much depth to hercharacter. It's more like a reminder to both herself and her husbandnot to sleep with beautiful young women for fear that they will stalkyou and you might have to accidentally drop them from a window. Becausethat happens every day. Overall though, despite this harsh criticism ofthe writing, it is an entertaining film. I just think that much likeMarley and Me, I would have been happier had I turned it off beforewatching the final chapter.

Kelly Vance

(2012-04-29 13:50:17)

Chloe follows a well-worn narrative path, the marital strife triangle, with disappointing but vividly lurid results.

Robert Levin

(2012-04-29 00:33:06)

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

Owen Gleiberman

(2012-04-28 16:15:23)

Most of Chloe is plodding and drab. We're a step ahead of Egoyan's tricks, and that's because we've seen them -- all of them -- before.

Noel Barton

(2012-04-27 22:12:55)

Average movie unless you have an appreciation of lesbian action which I do

Chloe is an erotic thriller which is essentially a tamer lesbianversion of fatal attraction. Comparing it to fatal attraction it comesoff badly as never really gets that gritty and tense but in it's ownright it's a good movie with plenty to offer... like Amanda Seyfried'schest.Whilst it was predictable and formulaic I certainly can't say I wasever bored. I'm probably being far too generous with my rating due toloving lezzing up and Amanda Seyfried's rather excellent rack but it'sworth watching just for the scene where the Chloe character has anorgasm over a rack of shoes; had me pissing myself. So for those whohave an appreciation for Amanda Seyfried and her awesome rack andlesbian sex then this is a 7; if not then a 5.

(2012-04-27 15:09:47)

Amanda Seyfried is delicious!

This review is from: Chloe (DVD) I'm sure there were body doubles, if not hook me up.LOLThat being said ...This was a realistic story about a married couple that should more time with one another.Hello ... divorce rate anyone.If it were easy, everybody would be married.... urhem ...The story plays on your mind about whether we have another guy creeping in his marriage.Along comes Chloe to the rescue ...PROslesbian scenebeautiful womenimplied sex scenesCONshokey endingWindows are nailed in securely.The amount of force required to knock one out is great.Tempered glass is very strong too.

Chris_Docker

(2012-04-25 11:34:45)

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.

simona gianotti

(2012-04-25 06:38:26)

Seductive but predictable, the cast makes a difference

Good cast and intense interpretation make up for a predictable andsometimes overstretched movie. I saw and heard mostly what I expectedto see and hear. The overall, and artfully created atmosphere is alwaysshifting from refinement to sophistication, from truthfulness tofalseness, from seduction to lasciviousness, where the director doesnot shy away from nudity, but thankfully recognizes that words may beas just erotically charged.Amanda Seyfried as Chloe is given that dewy appearance that only cinemacharacters have, Julienne Moore as Catherine is the true pulsing heartof the whole story, seductive and intense as well, in a more matureway, obviously, she feels an inner emotional laceration, needs to beawakened by the freshness of that young nymph, but still needs the loveand protection of her still loved husband. Liam Neeson is not enoughexplored, and is less involved in situations as he seems to be at thebeginning, but has the merit to be able, in the end, to embrace hiswife again. In the end, what emerges, is the power of words and imagination, thatcan be stronger and more dangerous than facts: that's the mostinteresting and less banal key of interpretation developed throughoutthe movie, together with the inner laceration of a mature woman, whofears the passing of years and her becoming no longer desirable to herhusband. On the whole, intense acting does a great job to give thepicture more consistency and depth than it would probably have had ifless talented acting had been delivered

tigerfish50

(2012-04-23 04:45:46)

Sexual psychodrama by the numbers

Atom Egoyan has made some wonderful films where the mysteries of thehuman psyche are gradually illuminated while his stories unfold at aleisurely pace. Unfortunately "Chloe" has none of his habitualsubtlety, and its narrative arc has the refinement of a daytime soapopera. Essentially a re-make of the French film "Natalie", the settinghas been transferred to an overcast, wintry Toronto where a doctor,Catherine, suspects her flirtatious husband could be playing away fromhome. A screenwriter looking for easy melodramatic options might seizeupon the idea that a suspicious wife would hire a prostitute todiscover if her spouse is prone to misbehavior - so that's the courseCatherine is obliged to take. It should come as no surprise that thisunwise decision leads to complications when Chloe the call-girlprivate-eye loses her professional detachment as she pursues herinvestigations, and the two women become entangled in a unlikelySapphic relationship of their own. Little reason is given for thisdevelopment - or much else that follows - and the film is fatallyhandicapped by a wooden script that manages to be both clichГѓВ©d andimplausible. The major plot twist can be seen clunking down the icystreet from a mile away, and until it arrives Julianne Moore'sCatherine spends the duration looking brittle and neurotic, whileAmanda Seyfried's Chloe lacks any kind of erotic allure with hersimpering coquettish airs, and Liam Neeson's supposedly charmingacademic possesses the same depth as a cardboard cut-out. Since none ofthe main characters are particularly likable or credible, it requiresconsiderable effort to muster anything more than the shrug of ashoulder when the film culminates in a predictable tragedy.

Jizdenky

(2012-04-22 17:11:39)

'This business transaction, which is what this was, is over!'

I've enjoyed Egoyan's films like 'Exotica' and 'Where the Truth Lies'.By comparison 'Chloe' is his weakest film. It starts off very well asEgoyan builds a tense atmosphere that is seductive but also numb. Thethree main characters are experiencing hollowness in their lives. Davidkeeps himself busy at work to escape home. Catherine longs to have thatrelationship that she shares with her husband twenty years ago andChloe is searching for love, even in the smallest thing.'Chloe' is a very well made film. Egoyan displays it in his traditionalway with captivating visuals, dazzling cinematography, mesmerizingscore and understated performance from his actors. The love scene withSeyfried and Moore is beautifully shot.Amanda Seyfried is brilliant in the title role. She depicts Chloe'svulnerability, enigma, numbness and fragility with conviction. JulianneMoore is spellbinding as the gynaecologist who suddenly finds herselfseduced by Chloe. Liam Neeson, though overshadowed by both women, isadequate.While the first portion is enigmatic, mysterious, intense andmesmerizing, things go haywire when Egoyan chooses to suddenly turn'Chloe' into a typical thriller with a typical Hollywood ending. I wishEgoyan hadn't chosen to go this standard Hollywood way. A film that hadpotential is ruined.as I felt that this film had potential.

aura-cathartes

(2012-04-14 14:59:57)

Nothing fits emotionally in this soap opera sex melodrama

This film could have been so much better since it has three greatactors--Julianne Moore, Amanda Seyfried and Liam Neeson--but thewriters and director seem unable to make the motivations of charactersreal. Seyfreid's Chloe is longing for a mother; Moore's CatherineStewart frets over aging and loss of sexual attractiveness; andNeeson's David just wants to serve his students, in a very personalway. But nothing fits emotionally. Chloe's mother hunger would never take the sexual form it does as aloving prostitute who claims she wants to love whatever she can aboutothers; but she's destructive, dishonest and vicious, so her motherhunger goes manically awry. Moore's suspicions about her husband'sfidelity drives her to hire Chloe to check out her husband, but whenshe finds out that Chloe has been both loving her and deceiving her,she keeps up the emotional connection, which his highly unlikely. Davidis just a good looking faithful though frustrated husband--yeah!Anyway, it's a soap with some good body shots of the ladies. Somereviewers think the female to female sex in it is lesbianism, but it'snot really that; more like misguided longing for an authentic other.

(2012-04-13 16:26:38)

crafty

Well done. For the most part, you didn't know what was going on. What was going to happen. Very entertaining. You could tell though, that Chloe was up to something.

Felix Yaroshevsky

(2012-04-10 19:47:25)

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.

(2012-04-10 05:51:24)

Going nowhere

This is one of the worst movies I ever seen, plot is totally absurd, it's pointless, it's nothing and should be titled "Scrambled egg mind of a wife". One star because it's just 93 minutes long.

Matthew Turner

(2012-04-05 00:00:47)

Chloe is beautifully shot and worth seeing for the terrific performances by Moore and Seyfried.

Anthony Morris

(2012-04-04 16:04:03)

It's doubly disappointing because before everyone turns into clichГ©s this seemed poised to actually say something moderately interesting about love and relationships.

Framescourer

(2012-03-28 02:05:47)

Laughable Hitchcock meets Fatal Attraction mongrel

Dreadful. As a romantic thriller in which an impressionable, schemingnymphette gets dragged into a couple's mid-life wobble, there's a fairbit of sex - imagined, evoked, solipsistic. Well, this is treatedfetishistically by Egoyan, pornographically, filling in the blankspaces after emotional sequences. There is nothing to invest the sexwith any danger or meaning. I don't buy the idea of Catherine gettingentangled with Chloe through some sort of strange, sexual-metaphysicaltransposition. It just seems like an excuse for two attractive women toget it on.The script is a mess of simplistic statements and incoherence. Iimagine that it didn't help having Anna Fontaine (who directed the 2003film, Nathalie, on which this is based) co-writing the script: havingalready made a coherent version, reworking it could be more likeunravelling it. Julianne Moore, who is the chief protagonist, is reallyquite good, although clearly acting under Egoyan's direction. Neeson asthe husband and Max Thieriot (Michael) are plain and occasionallyover-melodramatic.Unforgivably though, Seyfried is hung out to dry by the script and thedirector. They've no idea what her character is. There's not even anallusion to a history, and her 'call girl' background, which opens thefilm, is effectively abandoned halfway through. I'm still no betterinformed as to her real acting capability.I liked Mychael Danna's music but it's disingenuously appropriated as asub-Hermann lacquer on a film that, despite Egoyan's aspirations, isn'ta patch on Hitchcock. Music and its indifferent use throughout the filmis actually a striking bell-weather of the film's failings. I knew itwas going to be dreadful when one of the opening scenes shows Neeson'smusic lecturer pointing at students to ask them questions about opera.Point and show is about the extent of the film's dialectic. 2/10

Lucien Lessard

(2012-03-27 16:01:51)

Not the erotic thriller some might expect but it is still an intelligent drama.

Dr. Catherine Stewart (Julianne Moore) is thinking that her CollegeProfessor husband (Liam Neeson) is cheating on her. Catherine decidesto hired an beautiful young prostitute named Chloe (Amanda Seyfried) totry to seduced her husband. But slowly... Catherine finds herselfsexually attractive to Chloe and Chloe feels the same way but there'snothing ordinary about her. Nothing what it seems of this veryattractive woman.Directed by Atom Egoyan (Exotica, The Sweet Hereafter, Where the TruthLies) made an entertaining drama with the right moments of eroticism.Moore and especially Seyfried are excellent in their performances.Seyfried is surprisingly seductive in the title role of the movie. Iwould have loved to see Neeson's role to be bigger in the movie. Thisis the most commerical film from Egoyan so far.DVD has an fine anamorphic Widescreen (1.85:1) transfer and an goodDolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. DVD has an entertaining commentarytrack by the director, Screenwriter:Erin Cressida Wilson (Secretary)and actress:Seyfried. DVD also includes an 26 minute featurette and twodeleted scenes. "Chloe" is certainly an good film with some memorablemoments, especially scenes with Moore and Seyfried are the highlights.Ivan Reitman (Ghostbusters 1 & 2, My Super Ex-Girlfriend, Stripes) isone of the producers of the film. Ivan's Four Time Oscar-Nominated sonJason Reitman is one of the executive producers of themovie.(****/*****).

(2012-03-20 02:04:46)

Could have been good, but ending ruined it

The movie starts out interesting. The drama and tension that is present in the film helps to draw you in. But at the point where Chloe was telling the wife the stories about the affair, it was so obvious that she was lying. I couldn't understand why the wife just took her for her word, without actual proof. What happens after with the wife and Chloe is definitely one of the more interesting parts of the film, although I thought they could have developed this a little more...we don't really understand why it is that Chloe has this obsession with her. Is it a mental problem, or is it just a big lesbian crush? I liked the character of the son, although not the parts where he is cussing at his mother all the time. Liam Neeson and Julianne Moore are great actors and this film did not live up to their potential. The thing that really ruined this movie was the ending. It was completely stupid and unrealistic. The suspense and sexual tension make this film worth watching, but keep in mind it is definitely cut short because of the ending.

Mark Dujsik

(2012-03-19 09:56:51)

A highly evocative psychological drama.