Catherine and David, she a doctor, he a professor, are at first glance the perfect couple. Happily married with a talented teenage son, they appear to have an idyllic life. But when David misses a flight and his surprise birthday party, Catherine's long simmering suspicions rise to the surface. Suspecting infidelity, she decides to hire an escort to seduce her husband and test his loyalty. Catherine finds herself 'directing' Chloe's encounters with David, and Chloe's end of the bargain is to report back, the descriptions becoming increasingly graphic as the meetings multiply. Written by
When Dr. Stewart is in her son's room and checks a message from Chloe the date shown is Friday, 25 March 2009. The correct date should be Friday, 27 March 2009. See more »
[Calling Catherine in her clinic]
Where are you?
I'm in your waiting room. Didn't you see me when I came in?
[camera pans to Chloe, standing in the doorway]
See more »
I confess that I usually find the erotic thrillers to be tedious and pretty laughable.However, there is a more "artistic" category I would call as "psico-sexual drama"; into the category, I would include films such as Closer; Eyes Wide Shut; Lust, Caution; and Crash (1996).That division is merely subjective, but I think it obeys to the obvious difference in the filmmakers' intention; let's say that while the erotic thriller simply relies on a soap-opera screenplay of passion and intrigue in order to justify the nudity from the cast, the "psico-sexual drama" is more interested in the causes of that passion and the consequences the characters suffer when they are unable to rationally control it.The film Chloe dangerously gets near the most sordid extreme from the balance, but the excellent performances and Atom Egoyan's sober direction are what rescue it.
The screenplay from Chloe is not very original, and the "surprise" revelation from the final minutes is predictable.However, the film is interesting, specially thanks to the intense work from the three main actors: the great Julianne Moore expresses the deepest emotions from her character with minimum effort and maximum impact; Liam Neeson also brings a credible and very detailed work; and Amanda Seyfried displays the big histrionic talent she could not show in crappy romantic films like Letters to Juliet and Dear John.
And besides of the performances, Egoyan drives the movie at a good rhythm and he could bring a good atmosphere to it.And I think that his work, along with the perfect performances, make Chloe to be worthy of a recommendation, despite the various fails from the screenplay and the fact of not being highly memorable.I do not think this one is among Egoyan's best films (which are, from what I have seen from his filmography and my humble point of view, Ararat and The Sweet Hereafter), but I think it is an interesting addition to his career.
16 of 26 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?