The synopsis of "Chloe" simply says "A DOCTOR HIRES A ESCORT TO SEDUCE HER HUSBAND Whom SHE SUSPECTS OF CHEATING" Now if you have seen past Atom Egoyan films you know it's can't be that simple. Throughout his career The Sweet Hereafter, Exotica, Adoration non of Egoyan's characters are ever what they appear to be nothing changes here. Dr. Catherine Stewart a Toronto gynecologist stumbles onto a text message on her husband Music professor David Stewart phone from a young women saying "Thanks for last night" along with a photo of the two together . <more>
This along with David's constant flirting with every women he finds attractive leads her to suspects of cheating. She hires the attractive young escort / prostituted Chloe she has come to know from the neighborhood. to tempt Davis then to report back with the results. What follows keeps you in wonder and suspense and to who is telling the truth who is lying who is cheating who is not doing anything. The mystery surrounding all has Dr. Stewart on the verge of a breakdown. This in a way is a very different film for Egoyan as many familiar names from his past work is missing his wife Arsinee Khanjian has no part major or minor gone is longtime collaborator Robert Lantos even his production company Ego Arts Film is missing from the credits. Having only to direct seems to have allowed Egoyan to work his magic to a new level This may be his best film to date I don't know if I would consider it his masterpiece but I do feel it does rise above all his previous work I hope this time his peers in the industry take notice this one deserves a Oscar for it's director. Let's leave it at that if you a re a fan of Egoyan you will congratulate yourself on having such good taste if you are not a fan or do not even know who he is go see "Chloe" after you do you will be heading to your local video store or Net Flicks to grab up all his previous work.
Good Movie but totally predictable (by nysalesman100-1)
Let me start by stating that I loved this movie. It had good acting, good set and scene design, and a great story. That being said, don't expect anything new. One reviewer said that it was a good movie with a twist at the end. I can unequivocally tell you that there is no twist. In fact, it is hugely obvious that Julianne Moore is being played the second time she meets with Chloe and from there you can easily predict where the rest of the movie was going. In fact, from that point I was anxiously awaiting the lesbian love scene and it cued on a little later than I anticipated. Even so, the <more>
movie was a fun ride anyway. Another reviewer stated that he/she was worried that the movie would be cheapened by going Fatal Attraction at the end but fortunately that didn't happen. I don't know what brand of Crack this reviewer was smoking, but the movie totally went Fatal Attraction at the end. In fact, the only thing missing was the dead cat in a pot of boiling water. Like I said, it's a great movie and definitely worth watching if you haven't seen it before, but don't expect any huge surprises other than seeing Jullian Moore in all of her naked beauty .
My take is far better than the "experts." (by diane-34)
I just watched this film on TV and Diane thought that it was good; I just thought it was better. Obviously the actors were outstanding while the remainder of the film was virtually equally as excellent. The fact that the script was from a French story filmed in Toronto, Canada made for fascinating settings; they were away from the now boring settings in New York and Southern California. The three and one half main characters the half being the son were superb by my standards; I thought they carried their roles excellently and therefore very believably. This is were the settings play such a <more>
large role; these settings played perfectly into this story line lending a more reasonable believable? direction to the entire film.This film is definitely worth a look in if the chance presents itself.
Erotic, exotic, beautifully shot, and with a score that is special (by zken)
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 <more>
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.
an intense drama about sexual identification and fantasy (by Quinoa1984)
Sometimes a story needs to just let its characters go where the situation takes them. A situation isn't always conducive to storytelling telling a story vs. a situation , but in the case of Chloe it's the way to go. The situation here is this: a doctor Julianne Moore is suspicious, perhaps even certain in some way, that her husband, an opera teacher Liam Neeson is cheating on her. As a way to find out, or just out of curiosity as to what he'll do, he approaches a call-girl Amanda Seyfried who has a knack for fulfilling any client's desire. When Chloe asks this woman <more>
about her husband being the client, she says he isn't. Her job will be to approach him, simply, in a cafe and see what he does. But according to Chloe, an innocent conversation him being "friendly" as he is with a lot of women turns into something else entirely... or is it? This situation unfolds in a manner that is less about the conventional 'what will happen to their marriage' than what will happen to Moore's character, and Seyfried's Chloe, in relation to one another. It's one thing to have a character having sex with one spouse, but then having it with the other is something else. But that's not even what Atom Egoyan, the director, is fully interested in although the sex scenes, when they do come up, usually from Moore's gynecologist imagining what her husband has been doing - and then herself actually with Chloe, are the most seriously erotically charged ones seen in a while . His concern, as a storyteller with this 'situation' is what is in the mind, what perception does to a married couple over time.Catherine can imagine David doing these things, and we as the audience accept this as what really happened because Chloe, as the in-charge girl of the fantasy, makes it so. What do we perceive as who's wrong or right here, or is there even that issue? Eventually the movie Chloe turns into an obsession kind of story, where Chloe becomes enraptured with Catherine and their tryst together. A third-act revelation I hesitate to call it a twist makes things a lot more clearer, but does it matter if one sees it coming I didn't, but I can see how suspicions can be had right from the beginning . It's Egoyan's way of seeing these people in these situations, how serious everything is taken but how it doesn't become too trashy; only the music by Mychael Danna sees to make it more of a sleek erotic drama when it doesn't need it the best music cue has nothing to do with him, but rather the cutaway from one crucial scene to the next where Catherine/David's son is playing a perfectly somber piece of piano at a recital .One part of it is the camera, sliding along and pairing up the imagery in certain scenes watch as Catherine is excited in the shower of the image of David in the botanical garden, their juxtaposition is interesting . But another crucial thing is the performances. Moore and Neeson deliver the goods, and we hope they always do Neeson especially has a very hard part, despite the supporting role as the husband, since he has to reveal what is necessary for Catherine to perceive, not so much what is fully realistic , and the actor playing the son fares less well, though that may be due to him being underwritten or just not well written enough . But it's Seyfried who comes away here the real winner; she's naturally sexy and appealing, and can convey Chloe's ability to play Catherine so well because it's what she does. She's younger but wiser when it comes to intimacy and the power of suggestion, and the details in her descriptions, in the writing and the acting, is totally solid. We've seen Seyfried try, and sometimes succeed, more or less with material i.e. Mean Girls and Jennifer's Body , and here is where she really, fully gets to shine in a three-dimensional character.We know the players and we know how it might turn out, but you can't be sure. Egoyan eschews a Fatal Attraction third act turn for something a little more dangerous and exciting. I wasn't sure if Chloe was nuts, or just got off on her own superior way of playing this family of bourgeois Toronto-ites. It's about knowing what we know, and what we choose to do with that information as a sexual partner, a lover, a person, a friend, whatever, and that intimate fantasy element. It comes close to trash, but it really isn't. Taking its flaws aside, it's one of the smartest adult though not pornographic thrillers in recent memory.
"Chloe" should stand for warning. An unhappy wife discovers through the use of technology that her marriage could be in trouble. Deep at the heart of her problems is the lack of communication poisoning her family. Her estranged son rarely looks at her, and her husband seems to be afraid of something.Soon enters "Chloe", a rather puzzling, mysterious, and fascinating young woman who seems to be available to those who can afford her charms. From the beginning, nothing is what it appears, and soon Catherine Julianne Moore decides it's time to make a deal with the <more>
dazzling Chloe. As things begin to progress, Catherine realizes her husband's behavior might be more problematic than she suspected, and with Chloe's help, it all seems to become clear.We expect events to get more complicated, and they certainly do, as the two women's relationship becomes a bit unhealthy. Seyfried is a revelation as the young lady of the evening, with more baggage than we thought possible. She envelops her preys in a rather nasty trap, and no member of the family is left untouched. The film is short, and the dialog very simple, as lines are quickly delivered, but much is left unsaid, left to the two actresses to fill in the gaps, as we see desire, confusion, frustration, fear, anger, and guilt all come to the surface.Somewhere stuck in the middle is David Neeson , the man who we can quite understand or care much about. As things get nastier, it is our fascination with self destructive relationship that we are concerned. Before we know it, things are going to get really bad, and eventually they all lead to a shocking conclusion."Chloe" is a study in desperation, obsession, and need to be desired, liked, and identity. It's hard to truly understand what leads the main characters to their self destructive affairs, and it's especially fascinating to see how "Chloe" opens up to Catherine in the opening scenes, and how she defies comprehension by the nature of her moves. We never really know where truth begins and fantasy/manipulation take over.In the end it might not matter, as we slowly discover than the perfect family, with the gifted trio of a doctor mother, a seasoned professor, and a gifted child have flawed lives. Along comes someone who sets off a series of events that will allow them to learn more about themselves, might make them heal, or possibly might completely destroy their bonds.The film is more accessible than any of Egoyan's previous work, might fail to please some people in the audience because it leaves us with more questions than answers. It certainly seems to go by very quickly, as the director pieces the film together with very little background scenes, and he just keeps jumping into the various scenarios with he same recklessness than Catherine and Chloe do. Finally, one has to admire how effective the film is, and we could only hope that somewhere we can find a resolution to these people's problems.
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 <more>
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.
Amanda Seyfried takes my heart away with her beauty an underrated tragic love drama (by ivo-cobra8)
Chloe 2009 is really underrated love tragic drama. It is not that bad of a film I really liked it. I am not a drama love story fan guy but this movie really surprise me. It was not boring, over long or over dramatic like some movies are! It has a love drama and it ends with a twist and with a tragedy on the end of the film. Amanda Seyfried took my heart away with her acting, her beauty and I feel remorse for her character. I understood her character. I know now is based on the earlier French film Nathalie... 2003 I know that film is praised since Chloe come out, but who cares! I hated <more>
Dear John and Notebook I hated those films. The only films I liked in drama were American Beauty, Great Expectations that was a based on a novel and The Vow I like those movies.Chloe this movie also has an erotic thriller about seducing and manipulating other peoples and it has a message. Don't belive anything and anyone you hear from people. Julianne Moore is fantastic and the women can act. She is awesome actress she is one the actresses I like and that's rarely by me. Liam Neeson is excellent as always I love this guy. I love Taken, Non-Stop in which Julianne Moore and Liam Neeson reunite again. A Walk Among the Tombstones, Unknown and Run All Night. I love the actor even in this drama he is so good. The thriller that was in this movie reminds me in other movies like are: Fatal Attraction. The Game, Disclosure and The Boy Next Door. 8/10 this is a tragic love story and that a good one, It worked by me I understand the character, the movie worked better then in other movies. In my opinion I like it! Atom Egoyan did a good job directing this movie. Response to a nutcase below me: the movie is not bland it is at least much better than your stupid dumb movie Batman Vs Superman: Dawn Justice. F**K Off!
Overall a good movie for any thriller or drama fans! (by s-johansson-it)
At first I was worried that this movie would end up being the typical cheesy movie about betrayal and jealusy but after just a few minutes in to the movie I realised it was going to be much more.The movie is about a woman that's convinced her husband is cheating on her, and in her pursuit of the truth she looks for alternatives way to find out if her husband, who is away on work for long periods of time, is capable of betraying her.I won't go into more details on the story than this, and I don't think I need to. I will say this though; at times I thought I had it all figured out <more>
but I was wrong every time, and that's what made this thriller particularly interesting, as so many modern thrillers in this genre generally doesn'y deliver much excitement.Very good acting, believable characters as well as an interesting development in the story. I really enjoyed this movie, and I think you will too. 8/10! .. and did I mention there is nudity? Enough said, watch this movie!