IMDb > Chloe (2009) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Chloe More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 2 of 18:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]
Index 172 reviews in total 

60 out of 108 people found the following review useful:

Loved it!

Author: BTMalinowski from United States
15 January 2010

Thrilling erotic adventure with some of the best acting we've seen out of Amanda Seyfreid to date! The direction lulls you in to a wild ride as more of the plot is revealed. MUST SEE. It was so enjoyable to see Toronto finally shot AS TORONTO. It is also noteworthy that Liam Neeson courageously filmed a portion of this movie after the tragic death of his wife. With wild twists and turns. I saw this at the Toronto film festival and couldn't have been more pleasantly surprised by the result. 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 in a great acting performance with her great control of a woman who's life begins to spiral out of control.

Was the above review useful to you?

37 out of 63 people found the following review useful:

Why no mention of "Nathalie" ?

Author: faibrit from United Kingdom
16 February 2012

I have just watched the Making Of interviews on the DVD of Chloe and am mystified as to why the director and screenwriter make absolutely no mention of the original French film "Nathalie" upon which Chloe is based. In fact, the American screenwriter has copied many of the words and situations directly from the original version, including the wife's profession of gynaecologist. I think this has to be the worst form of plagiarism ever. "Nathalie" is a far more subtle and erotic movie and I would like everyone to know that neither the story nor the screenplay of the American version originate with Erin Cressida Wilson or Atom Egoyan. It is disingenuous of these American filmmakers to not even mention the French film. How does everyone else feel about being misled?

Was the above review useful to you?

48 out of 85 people found the following review useful:

Erotic, exotic, beautifully shot, and with a score that is special

Author: zken from United States
27 March 2010

It was great to see the crowd for this film at my local cinema. Yes, the reviews for this look like they are all over the map. But let it be said that without this fantastic casting (Julianne Moore, Liam Neeson and Amanda Seyfried-a powerful erotic trio), the glorious cinematography and the wildly gorgeous sound track, it might be all of what these arm chair critics are saying. We live only a few miles from Canada by air but it might as well be Istanbul in the hands of this director. Magically the city of Toronto in winter is like another world, with a sleek modern feel that is alluring and cold at the same time. This is the perfect setting for a movie rich in the cloaked emotion of the upper class, lost in a deep freeze. Watching the film in spring in California, makes it seem even more unreal and foreign. In this landscape of ice, we see the characters emerge as modern people lost, alienated, hungary for love and even just human touch. This is a movie of antithesis, and startling allusions of the duality between trust and fear, openness and truth and the hard fact of emotional allusion and mirror like dreams. This film has nothing to do with Hitchcock and everything to do with Bunuel, and the deep wave of surrealist magic still washing on the shore of French thought and culture. Yes the ending is dubious, but it can't crush your response. For those of you wide awake enough to enjoy this, you will be rewarded in ways that American directors rarely seem to reach. What I say is bravo!I believe that for these moments, such dreams are very real.

Was the above review useful to you?

18 out of 26 people found the following review useful:

Totally risible!

Author: Maciste_Brother from the rock
2 January 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

CHLOE is the most risible film I've seen since, well, WHERE THE TRUTH LIES. The story is totally whacked and one wonders who in their right mind thought this story made any sense: a spoiled rich gynecologist believes her husband is cheating on her. She suddenly feels invisible: her husband is having sex with one of his young students. Friends are dating young chicks. Her son his sleeping with a hot chick in his bedroom. People all around are boinking chicks. The wife suddenly realizes "Heck, I'm missing on all of the hot action" so she decides to hire a hooker, with the idea of seducing her husband to see if he'll sleep with her, but it's all a ruse really because she's the one who ends up having sex with Chloe the Hooker. Chloe invents all these "hot" stories of her sleeping with the husband, to dupe the silly wife; these stories are so hot the wife decides to have sex with the hooker, because the wife feels she's invisible and by having sex with Chloe it's like some transference thingy going on and part of the passion the husband is sharing with the hooker the wife thinks she'll feel it too.

Got that?

The logic in the story is so whacked, it had me rolling on the floor.

First of all, I can't sympathize/empathize with the wife's pain/grief. She's a wealthy spoiled woman who hires a young woman to trap her husband. Nice character.

Second, the couple is a corny couple. Who cares if they don't make it or anything about their happiness.

Third, the two women, the silly wife and the hooker, are shown as being total nut jobs: the wife is gullible and accepts every little detail the hooker tells her without any proof of what she's claiming is real and the hooker is shown as being mentally unstable in the SINGLE WHITE FEMALE kind of way.

So basically the degrading screenplay portrays these two neurotic women as crazy, conniving, manipulating, narcissistic and out of control with their emotions. They both end-up coning each other while object of the initial target, the boring husband, doesn't even figure in the story. The two scheming women end up looking like two monkeys fellating each other at the zoo. I wanted to throw peanuts at them to make them stop. The ending elevates the level of degradation when Chloe the Hooker sleeps with the son in the parents' bedroom and when they're found out Chloe the Hooker then tries to seduce the wife again, which is seen by her son. The wife, embarrassed, literally pushes Chloe away to her death. Nice.

Though the story hints at Pasolini's brilliant TEOREMA, the storyline is straight out of the 1970s Black Emanuelle trash epics. Well, I would rather watch any Laura Gemser flick than this risible piece of "serious" filmmaking. The sex scenes in CHLOE were not hot for one second. Just unconvincing.

When the wife suddenly realizes the truth with those fake encounters Chloe has been telling her, she tells the clueless husband what she did: that she hired a hooker to entrap him and that she also ended up having sex with her (and in turn became the cheater here), the husband shrugs it off as if it was normal and OK. Again, this is me on the floor laughing my butt off. If I was the husband, I'd ask the wife to seek professional psychiatric help. I mean, the money she spent on the hooker could have been spent on something more important, ya know, like a brand new flat screen TV for that ridiculously overly designed house of theirs.

Even though it's a remake of a French film CHLOE reminded me more of the trashy Italian film called DELERIUM starring Mickey Hargitay. Same insane logic in the storyline with the women being completely crazy and degraded. The excellent Julianne Moore needs to get better projects than this laughable & embarrassing stuff.

Was the above review useful to you?

15 out of 23 people found the following review useful:

Cheap porn, flawed story, painfully stupid

Author: z_imdb-28 from United States
24 November 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

There are so many things wrong with this movie it's difficult to know where to begin slamming it.

Right off the bat; the overall cadence is painfully slow with scenes taking too long to complete. The musical score is a boring drone with an occasional series of annoying banging on what sounds like a garbage can, where this movie ultimately belongs. Surround sound edits such as left speaker actress, right speaker actress are sophomoric and ineffective and, also, actually annoying. The scenery of Ontario is that of a small street mall shot on wintery, cloudy days, not much to look at.

Now for the horrible plot: Wife finds photo message from girl thanking hubby for good time when he shoulda been at her surprise b-day party. Logically, wife hires prostitute to test hubbys fidelity. What we know instinctually and right away is that prostitute is crazy and makes it all up but, without any discernible motive, stalks family and ultimately does the wife, the son and then kills herself by falling thru an extremely flimsy window.

Chloe manages at first to convince Dr Stewart, in graphic detail, the sexual escapades her adulterating husband enjoyed which leads the lovely Dr to retain the psycho for yet another job never approaching her husband with what she apparently already knew; he's a cheater, but he isn't really, after all it's Liam Neeson who's never been a bad guy in any of his films, part of his contract I guess.

OK, we're not totally un-entertained, we get to see Amanda Seyfried and Julianne Moore in the buff getting it on. Dr. Stewart thought it would be a good idea to have sex with the prostitute since, after all, she's a gynecologist and can probably tend to the removal of STDs on her own. We also see Amanda Seyfried do the son and climax looking at belongings of his mother; Dr. Gyno, Chloe's real love for some unexplained reason, good gynecology? Who knows? The holes here in logic exercised by an educated overpaid professional are too much to swallow. The lack of motive by Chloe and the interference with her presumed income is also confusing but in the end we get to see the hair clip given to the Dr by the hooker pinned to her smiling head as the movie fades into oblivion, where it needs to stay. I suppose the hair pin could be to blame for the evil that was done as it's apparently a center piece of film, but they just don't clue us into that. Maybe the soft porn scenes consumed all the resources? Don't waste your time on this trash. Unless you're into girl on girl, in which case, look to Moore, she's got a much better body than Amanda Seyfried

Was the above review useful to you?

21 out of 35 people found the following review useful:

A Cop Out for Conventionality

Author: Bruce_Stern from northern California, USA
11 April 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Convention triumphs over the unexpectedly exposed and terrifying truth of the self in Atom Egoyan's contemporary marriage mystery. A female gynecologist—a professional trained to look inside the bodies of women to reveal their truth, and perhaps something of their essence—suspects her husband of infidelity. She hires a Lolita look-alike call girl to entice her husband to determine his betrayal tendencies. The husband, a college instructor, and flirt, denies aging by intentionally missing his flight to home on his birthday, thwarting his wife's surprise birthday party arrangements. Their relationship has died—he now devotes himself to teaching, and is apathetic about the burned-out marital passion; she walks around in frustration, and flails about in response to her ineffectual attempts to her marriage emptiness. While it appears the husband is at least getting his physical needs met, the couple's mentally ill teenage son is obviously the only one in this upper middle class bare semblance of a family getting any for sure. His mother, jealous of her son's liaisons, but actually confronted by her own passionless life by his success, fails to connect, too, with the other familial male —her son. This woman, apparently successful at discerning the nature, or at least the core female health of her professional clients, has lost the capacity to know herself, and how to know herself. The prostitute reports her 'findings' face-to-face to the wife, which arouses her. The young woman, played effectively with big blue eyes and mouthy nuance by Amanda Siegfried, notes the wife's subtle arousal signals. The wife surprises herself with her responses to the descriptive tales of liaison, but the girl's got an unrevealed plan. The wife comes to the discovery of her true sexual nature, but without revealing the whys of her rejection of it, falls back to conventionality. The movie's ending cops out to the truth, revealing once again Hollywood's immense incapacity for encouraging honest living, or at least genuine acknowledgment of the truth, and the cost of its ignorance. © Bruce Stern, April 2010

Was the above review useful to you?

16 out of 26 people found the following review useful:

Interesting, but not very memorable

Author: Argemaluco from Argentina
12 August 2010

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

15 out of 25 people found the following review useful:

The worst movie I have seen in a long while...horrible

Author: Magic_Rebo from Germany
22 January 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

What's the point of watching a movie which partly consists of a person telling a story which eventually happens to be untrue? Especially if the lie is so obvious that the viewer (at least I was) is totally bored waiting for the truth to be revealed to Julianne Moore. Is the director trying to trick us into believing that Chloe's story is true? If he does I am a bit offended at him for thinking me so stupid. It's such a cliché-narrative, it has been done so many times in similar ways that you would have to make quite an effort for it to be believable. Its like watching a 6th Sense remake. Who would want to watch it if the whole final effect of 'oh my god, he is a ghost' is gone?

As the viewers, are we supposed to be surprised that it all was just made up? Because I wasn't surprised at all. I was just extremely annoyed because it all was so painfully obvious.

The director is trying to unfold a story which is already unfolded in my mind before the first half is even over because it is predictable and lame.

But this is just one aspect which I did not like. There is so much more wrong with this movie that I could go on forever.

I could accept the flaw I just tried to point out if the rest of the movie was watchable, but it's not.

It's a movie about a hooker (or escort girl or what ever you want to call her) who turns out to have emotional problems; so while in the beginning she is acting all cool and telling us so intelligently and poetically about her job, about the dos and don'ts and how to behave with men, in the end she turns out to not be professional at all, she is just a crazy bitch. Julianne has some emotional problems because she is getting old and feels unwanted. Her son is just some teenage kid who is not really relevant for the movie except for the conflict with Chloe in the end. Liam Neeson is just chilling throughout the movie not really harming anyone, he seems to be more interested in his work than in his

honestly, who cares?

I suppose there is supposed to be some underlying deeper meaning...But I think its a load of ...just a pretentious attempt to be smart and intellectual. All the director does is coming up with some random drama-conflict ideas and mixing them together. in the end you have nothing of value...

I usually don't write reviews on IMDb; this is the first one. The movie just created so many negative emotions within me that I had to post my opinion. Especially after seeing how many people liked it. I mean, that's fine. We all have different tastes, but I just thought I post one for the people who disliked the movie as much as i did.

Was the above review useful to you?

21 out of 37 people found the following review useful:


Author: M W from United States
14 May 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I have no shame admitting that I watched this to see Amanda Seyfried naked. After watching this I realized thats exactly the reason not to watch it. Among other things like it having no plot no point & no purpose. None of the naughty scenes are sexy,seductive or erotic. I actually laughed at how stupefying the whole mess is. Not even MST3K could find a bone of contention here. Watching Chloe fail frame by frame is painful. Amanda gave up Big Love for this Dear John & Letters to Juliet?!?!? I do not care for Atom Egoyan as a director either. His movies are sniveling & rote aimed at a higher class of snobs. Chloe is the creme de la creme of dull pomp and circumstance cinematic drudgery. Oh & hey Liam After.Life & Chloe both in the same year wow did they even have to pay you man?!?!?My new name for Liam Neeson is Ol dirty Bastard.Chloe actually reminded me of another laugh a minute stinker called Obsessed.The only difference is Obsessed doesn't take itself too serious so while its a bad movie at least its not pretending not to be.

Was the above review useful to you?

14 out of 24 people found the following review useful:

Done watching movies made by Atom Egoyan

Author: (bikerc) from Vancouver, Canada
20 June 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

There is something implausible and artificial about the main characters, with their sexual promiscuity and lack of any trace of moral backbone.

I am not saying that every one in the movie should be a saint, but the movie feels as if Atom has two bags.

First bag, contains the following concepts/ideas/patterns: sexual promiscuity, sexual craving, deep hidden lesbian tendencies, insecurity, desperate need to be loved, no financial worries, loyalty, nice house, lot of time time to kill, can bang any woman in sight, can bang any man in sight, be good at both, have or have not feelings when you do it, capable of love.

Second bag: woman gynecologist who spends most of her time inspecting other women's vaginas, university teacher, horny young guy, escort girl.

Atom probably closed his eyes and combined randomly items from the first bag with items from the second bag. And the result is this movie which feels like a soup made from the content of a pig's stomach.

As much as I wanted I could not identify with any of these characters. I found them and the universe in which they operated artificial and contrived.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 2 of 18:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history