|Page 6 of 17:||               |
|Index||166 reviews in total|
A remake of 2003 French film Nathalie, Chloe is directed by Atom Egoyan
and it stars Julianne Moore, Liam Neeson, Amanda Seyfried and Max
Thieriot. Story has Moore as a successful doctor who suspects her
husband is being unfaithful with his younger students. Hiring a
prostitute to pose as a student and catch him in the act, it sets in
wheels the motions of untapped passions and deadly emotions.
It's a bit Hitchcock lite in truth, but the strength of the cast list always keeps the story interesting. The key turns in the plot are to be taken with a pinch of salt, but Egoyan and his team keep things ethereal as the tech credits are splendidly mounted. A safe and solid erotic thriller, even if it's more low-rent than high-grade. 6/10
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
"Chloe" is a just bad remake from the french film "Nathalie" (2003)
which starred Fanny Ardant, Emmanuelle Béart and Gérard Depardieu in
the leading roles.
Director Atom Egoyan just added some senseless drama stuff into his version. If you compare both versions, this remake can only lose.
Amanda Seyfried is a real sweetie and I liked her even in "Lovelace" but here she is just miscast: While Emmanuelle Béart in the original version was gorgeous and really convincing as prostitute, Seyfried looks more like a lost little girl. Not one single moment you will think she is a prostitute.
Julianne Moore and Liam Neeson both did a great job but had no chance against the bad script. But Moore has one fantastic moment in the scene when she confesses her husband that she feels that she lost her youth and beauty while he gets more attractive with every gray hair and thinks he doesn't like her anymore. A very sensitive and wonderful moment that lets you forget the rest of the film.
Seyfrieds character Chloe is just a lost girl who is at first looking for friendship and then for love but at the end Moores character Catherine rejects her in both ways.
Better watch the French original version "Nathalie" which is much more enjoyable.
Loved it, except for the fact that the escort in it has a broken
personality. It's another bad notch in the public image of the
profession, but of course, you need something to get the story going,
so I'm not hold it against the screen writers. Excellent acting. Only
flaw is the son's character, especially his final meddling which
lessens the strength of the ending.
Realistic couple. The main sex scene is hot, loved it. Great suspense without being heavy, it's more of an intrigue. Julianne Moore is perfect.
Chloe is an excursion into erotic thriller territory. It's far from being a success but it's a passable film. The whole cast is solid, but it's Julianne Moore who gives it her all here. Amanda Seyfried also impresses as the beautiful but insecure young prostitute. Jason Reitman was the one who persuaded Seyfried to star in the film. Much has been said about the nudity but, while the nudity is there, the film is still surprisingly cold. The problem is that the screenplay by Erin Cressida Wilson is not very good for this material. In addition to this, director Atom Egoyan was making this film like he didn't really understand what the story is really about. It seems as though he wanted to make a good picture but he wasn't interested in the material. Moore's character Catherine Stewart is given plenty of screen time. However, more time should have been spent on developing Seyfried's character Chloe Sweeney. As a result the film lacks urgency and looks like a glossy magazine. Chloe seems like a Fatal Attraction (1987) without the thrills. A great director and good actors, including Liam Neeson, were involved but the film hardly delivers. In my opinion, it's not a must-see movie. I watched it only because it stars Amanda Seyfried.
There is no point to recite the events shown in this movie. The main
thing - it is about love. Chloe (love) is what's missing in the life of
this "happy family", is something that everybody is looking for (all
the love encounters between Chloe and every member of the family),
tries to retain her and fail - breaking her to glass pieces in the
This movie brilliantly shows that modern life and seemingly perfect family is almost completely incompatible with love - or people are seeing love in many different ways - whichever they find attractive: father - having quick hand-job in the back of the flower shop, mother in the lesbian encounter or son having great sex with the hot-girl. All three of them are unable to hold-on to their corresponding version of love and return back to the loveless life.
The glance that they all share in the last scene - unites them in failure to attain love whether pathetic or fabulous or hot but failure nevertheless.
This movie is the great allegory, great hidden importance - real gem of the story behind the story and intellectual and sensual excellence. Oh and did I mention perfect acting?
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
A small film done for television and it shows. Too many close-ups for
one and the movements are so slow, including the final lethal accident,
that they seem suspended in mid-air. And these moments of absolute
concentration on one face with one expression that is stretched out to
unbearable proportions are definitely too long.
But there can be very good TV films? Sure, honey pie, sure, when David Lynch is the master of ceremonies.
Now what about the subject? A university professor that makes himself academically and pedagogically available to his students. The film cheats at once and only shows girls. Of course such open relations with students can be verging onto flirting, with the girls or with the boys, or both. Students need to meet listening ears and professors need to meet mirror neurons that are going to mimic or mi-mock them. Sex is at times even the only thing they all have on their minds but they would never do it for a myriad of reasons.
The wife is a gynecologist who has become frigid with her profession and she starts imagining for one thing among others that her late teenager nearly adult son is still a little boy who does not look at himself in the mirror and does not even know bees and birds have some kind of moss-life. Frigid I told you. Then she starts fantasizing her husband having an affair. So she hires a prostitute to approach her husband and test him.
What had to happen happens of course and what's more the wife falls for the girl, and what's more the girl makes the boy trip and fall for her and even spend some good time in the mummy's bed, and mummy really is the right word.
After a lethal accident everything will go back to normal. Three semi-strangers living under the same roof and nearly frigid to one another, estranged in all possible ways and only carrying on a life of boredom and dumb perversity. The husband will eventually assault a hotel maid and the wife will eventually have an affair with a female secretary of hers. As for the son he will probably be just as warped and twisted as his parents especially since he witnessed the lethal incident in his hastily put on briefs.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
When I finally decided to watch this movie I didn't really know what to
expect from it.
The starting situation is very simple: a married man accidentally/deliberately misses his flight and with it, his birthday too, which was thrown by his wife. The wife starts being paranoid and hires a prostitute to see if her husband is willing to cheat on her...
What I really loved about the movie is the acting performance Julianne Moore, Amanda Seyfried and Liam Neeson did. I particularly liked Amanda's acting, the way she played that fragile, and sometimes desperate girl. I also liked the storyline because it was interesting, at some points it was surprisingly exciting and it wasn't as predictable as other movies of its genre.
Although the story was quite easy to comprehend I failed to see why Cathrine thought that David was having an affair, just because he missed his flight. I mean Cathrine cried all night when David missed his flight, and she hasn't even seen Miranda's message yet, so she really had no reason to act like that... Personally, that's exactly why I couldn't feel sorry for Cathrine's character, because she had a paranoid rush and dragged everyone into all of this and it wasn't she who got hurt in the end...
All in all, I think this is typically a must watch movie that holds your attention until the very end of it...
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 as
Egoyan builds a tense atmosphere that is seductive but also numb. The
three main characters are experiencing hollowness in their lives. David
keeps himself busy at work to escape home. Catherine longs to have that
relationship that she shares with her husband twenty years ago and
Chloe is searching for love, even in the smallest thing.
'Chloe' is a very well made film. Egoyan displays it in his traditional way with captivating visuals, dazzling cinematography, mesmerizing score and understated performance from his actors. The love scene with Seyfried and Moore is beautifully shot.
Amanda Seyfried is brilliant in the title role. She depicts Chloe's vulnerability, enigma, numbness and fragility with conviction. Julianne Moore is spellbinding as the gynaecologist who suddenly finds herself seduced by Chloe. Liam Neeson, though overshadowed by both women, is adequate.
While the first portion is enigmatic, mysterious, intense and mesmerizing, things go haywire when Egoyan chooses to suddenly turn 'Chloe' into a typical thriller with a typical Hollywood ending. I wish Egoyan hadn't chosen to go this standard Hollywood way. A film that had potential is ruined.
as I felt that this film had potential.
*** (out of 4)
A successful gynecologist (Julianne Moore) begins to think that her husband (Liam Neeson) is having an affair with a much younger woman so she hires a prostitute (Amanda Seyfried) to try and seduce him. The prostitute begins a relationship with the husband so that she can give all the details to the wife who in return begins to have strange feelings towards the woman she hired as well as her husband. This isn't the first erotic movie from Egoyan who splashed on the scene years earlier with EXOTICA, another rather bizarre sex story. This film here isn't all about erotic feelings, although there's certainly a lot of sex talk. I think the most fascinating aspect of the film is Moore's character who is much older in years but seems to be lacking just about everything else. When the relationship starts out we never see the husband and hooker together. The story draws its power from the relationship that blooms between the wife and the hooker. This is so interesting because we're never really given the motives of the wife outside she wants to know if the husband is a cheater. She finds this out rather early yet she keeps sending the prostitute out to get more info. The press for the film milked the fact that Moore and Seyfried ended up in bed with a rather passionate sex scene. This sequence contains two obviously beautiful women yet the scene isn't about the sex but the drama of what their characters are feeling. I think the film never makes too much sense in what it's trying to do but perhaps that was the point. The point to keep us off guard and not sure where the thing is going to go. For the most part I enjoyed the seduction and bizarre relationship, although I must admit that I thought the final fifteen-minutes just went way too far. I'm really not sure if a film and story like this needed an ending or if any ending could have worked but the one they selected just came off way too weak. The best thing about the movie are the performances by the three leads. I've always been hit and miss on Moore as in one film I'll find her to be excellent but then the next I'd see her as lazy. There's no question this here ranks as one of her best performances because of the wide range of emotions she goes through. Her character goes through all sorts of ups and downs and I thought the actress handled them beautifully. I really enjoyed seeing how she handled this character who is pretty much going through a mid-life crisis while figuring out new things about her own sexuality. Neeson is also excellent in his role, although he's not got as flashy a role. Seyfried turns in a terrific performance as well as you have no problem believing her in the role and the level of sexual maturity she provides is certainly a highlight. I thought she and Moore did a terrific job together and you can feel everything their characters are going through. The "twist" in the story is one I caught fairly early on in the picture so if you don't pick up on this I'd say you'd enjoy the film even more. Even though CHLOE is a complete success I do think the performances make it worth sitting through.
Stepping into the good ol' erotic thriller genre, Egoyan did a movie that's safe and a little too predictable, but good. A specific plot twist is set up as a surprise but I think most people can see it coming early on. Moore and Seyfried are amazing here, as is Neeson in a performance which demands more mystery than anything else from him. It's a good movie, just not one that delves too deep and, being my first Egoyan, I probably was on the look-out for something a lot more something. I'll soon get to Exotica and The Sweet Hereafter. The framing of certain scenes, particularly in close-ups, reminded me of Cronenberg. Julianne Moore has amazing sexy nipples.
|Page 6 of 17:||               |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Official site||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|