Visitors Review

Philippa Hawker (2012-05-23 08:36)

As the film's tone moves from psychological drama to erotic arthouse thriller, slickness and absurdity overpower the playful, treacherous ambiguities it has established.

Ali Catterall (2012-05-22 23:25)

"This time he didn't bring sandwiches"

You know how you get those dodgy stalls selling knock-off perfumeswhich sound a bit like the original ("'Methadone', luv? It's just like'Opium'")? Well Chloe – which is also the name of a perfume – is aknock-off of an earlier film, a French number called Nathalie, from2003.This remake's written by Erin Cressida Wilson, who also penned indiehit Secretary; and Canadian-Armenian indie darling Atom Egoyan directs– or atomises – it. Oh, and it's produced by Ivan Reitman, responsiblefor My Super Ex-Girlfriend and Space Jam. Uh…Houston? We may have aproblem. But all in good time.Egoyan's known for his chilly, Pinterish dramas, often shot throughwith dark eroticism. Brains for balls. Exotica, for example, might beset in a strip club, but it's the equivalent of having a lap dancersubject you to intense psychoanalysis for nearly two hours. And for thefirst half hour, Chloe feels like the sort of sophisticatedpsychosexual thriller which, back in the day, you can easily imaginebeing molested in a verbal ménage a trois by Paulin, Parsons andPearson on the Late Review.Julianne Moore plays Catherine, a flinty, sexually-frustratedgynaecologist married to Liam Neeson's handsome music lecturer, whoseadoring young female students hang off his every crotchet. AfterCatherine suspects him of playing hide the flute, she hires theeponymous call girl (Amanda Seyfried, with a face like a Disneygoldfish) to flirt with him and report back. You would, wouldn't you.And as Chloe relates their encounters in increasingly forensic detail("We met in the park again, this time he didn't bring sandwiches") toan increasingly turned-on Catherine, the hunter becomes voyeur, thenprey. Turns out there's something missing from both their lives thatcan't be filled by marathon sessions of Come Dine with Me.Yet just as there's a single defining moment in every doomedrelationship when the blinkers finally fall off, you can practicallyset your watch at the point this slides into Single White-silliness,then absurdity, then hysteria, with a plot twist that comes galumphingin iron boots over the hill booming "How may I disappoint you today?"Moore's much the best thing in this, but writhes haplessly within thetrashy constraints of the B-movie script. Chloe proves once again thatjumping into bed with Hollywood producers only leaves art-housedirectors with a bad taste in the mouth and an embarrassing little rashin the morning.

sddavis63 (2012-05-22 14:07)

Erotic Thriller With Some Effective Twists But Little Point Or Purpose

The cast is decent, although not spectacular. Julianna Moore and LiamNeesom are a couple in a tired marriage, when she begins to suspectthat he's having an affair. To test his loyalty, she hires Chloe - aprostitute - to test her husband's loyalty by having her try to seducehim. The "temptation" takes up a lot of time although finally offers upa surprise twist: David (Neesom) isn't actually having an affair withanyone, but Chloe has developed a fixation with Catharine (Moore) andconvinces her that she's managed to seduce him, which opens up theopportunity for her to seduce Catharine. So there are severalinteresting twists and turns, but frankly the story seemed rather weak;for the most part it hung like a thread.Certainly the most positive aspect of the movie was the performance ofAmanda Seyfied as Chloe. She did a great job of developing Chloe as anincreasingly mysterious and creepy character. Interesting, though, thatwhile the title of the move is "Chloe" the title character isn't reallythe main character. That, to me, was definitely Catherine. I also trulyappreciated that the movie was set in Toronto, rather than usingToronto as the backdrop for an American city.This is an erotic thriller - with emphasis on "erotic." In particular,there is a pretty explicit lesbian sex scene between Moore and Seyfried(which, in all honesty, really wasn't necessary to the story and seemedto serve only to titillate - so to speak) and a fair amount of nudityscattered throughout. That was perhaps emphasized a bit too much, atthe expense of a clearer and tighter plot.

faibrit (2012-05-22 03:29)

Why no mention of "Nathalie" ?

I have just watched the Making Of interviews on the DVD of Chloe and ammystified as to why the director and screenwriter make absolutely nomention of the original French film "Nathalie" upon which Chloe isbased. In fact, the American screenwriter has copied many of the wordsand situations directly from the original version, including the wife'sprofession of gynaecologist. I think this has to be the worst form ofplagiarism ever. "Nathalie" is a far more subtle and erotic movie and Iwould like everyone to know that neither the story nor the screenplayof the American version originate with Erin Cressida Wilson or AtomEgoyan. It is disingenuous of these American filmmakers to not evenmention the French film. How does everyone else feel about beingmisled?

(2012-05-21 08:14)

What about the boy?

While I enjoyed the movie, one aspect bothered me. The son is portrayed as a mean, selfish, teenage brat. It appears he is just a rotten, damaged kid. No back story is provided. But in the Extras (Special Features deleted scenes) we see the reasons for his bad behavior, and they unfortunately change the whole dynamic of Julianne Moore's character for me. I realize the director has to make these decisions, but such an important incident should never have been left on the cutting room floor.

(2012-05-20 19:34)

Chloe Chloe Chloe

This review is from: Chloe (DVD) Okay so i had imagined something a taf bit different. But when i recieved this product i watched that night and thought it was amazing, it had such a talednted cast, and amazing story line, and great acting. This movie is deffinatly not a family movie, but a great one to watch by yourself or with a date. This movie is truely amazing and i will deffinatly be telling my freind's and family about this gem!

tigerfish50 (2012-05-20 07:20)

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 clichéd 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.

(2012-05-19 12:26)

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.

samkay1 (2012-05-16 18:23)

Liked it,

The Atom Egoyan behind Chloe is not 100% the auteur behind films likeErotica and The Sweet Hereafter, but he weaves it in the rightdirection, and the end result may be his most erotic film yet. Ergo,Chloe feels like enough of an Egoyan film for me to argue that goingcommercial is not something that will degrade the quality of his work,(although I can't say much for Where the Truth Lies.) Dr. Catherine Stewart suspects her husband is cheating on her, so shehires a local prostitute to seduce him, and report back with news. Thethings that Chloe has to say really turn on Dr. Stewart, and the twowomen start to fall for each other. But when Catherine decides it istime to pull the plug, Chloe isn't so eager to go away.Chloe grows increasingly eerie, and profound, which draws you in, butin the last twenty minutes, it comes close to falling apart. I knowthere are those out there who love Egoyan's inexplicable content, andthose who don't. Whether you like or dislike Chloe, I think I canguarantee this at least; It will give you something to think about forthe rest of the day.

Kyle Smith (2012-05-16 04:28)

Chloe may be otherwise forgettable, but it offers one of the steamier sex scenes you're likely to see at the movies this year.

(2012-05-15 00:39)

In The Time Of Her Time

No, I am not reviewing this film, Chloe, based on the story line of this rather mundane (and theme done before) psychological thriller (maybe) about an upper class American family (slightly dysfunctional, of course) who when doctor mom gets "signals" that professor dad is cheating on her in his (and her) old age (40-50 something, okay) who gets catch up in the thrall of what is euphemistically called a high end escort (a.k.a. "hooker", call girl, etc.). That's enough detail about the plot. What really interests me about this film is the sub-theme, the inter-generation lesbian theme that is rather graphic in its depiction. Here escort Chloe, through a series of machinations, beds doctor mom. And old lady doctor mom (and Chloe) likes it. Now the only reason that that theme resonates with me right now is that I have recently read Lillian Hellman's play The Children's Hour and seen the film (the 1961 version under that same name). That play and film with a very different plot line nevertheless deals rather more obliquely with lesbianism, almost as if it dare not speak its name (and it doesn't in the first film version of Hellman's play, These Three). So what makes Chloe of interest is as an example of how far, at least cinematically, we have come from the days when such topics, especially the "hot button" one of inter-generation sex, hetero, lesbian or otherwise, were relegated to underground movie houses or private viewings.

leveller0@yahoo.com (2012-05-14 11:15)

Very formulaic... Weak version of Fatal Attraction

This is probably the worst film I've seen this year despite having alesbian scene! It has a predictable climax, before descending into aridiculous finale. Before then, there is gratuitous sex... in the form of descriptions andscenes. This includes a barely believable lesbian scene betweenJulianne Moore's character, and 'Chloe' who has bedded her husband ather request. Except Chloe hasn't really. She made up fictionalencounters with the husband just to make Julianne (sorry, can'tremember her name in the film) jealous and upset. When Juliannerealises the truth, Chloe is busy seducing their son. Then Julianne andChloe have a confrontation in Julianne's bedroom (her son and Chloe arelying in bed), resulting in Chloe falling out of a window to her death.Don't bother, really.

Jeffrey M. Anderson (2012-05-14 04:58)

Overall, the strong characters and Egoyan's patient, thoughtful mood and pacing make it an above average effort.

bbowens (2012-05-13 15:27)

The very end seems to be missed or underestimated

I was starting to dis this movie when the very end came, with thecurious looks of the family, sort of eying each other from a middlingdistance. Then, in the final frame, showing the hairpin made it allcome together for me, shedding light on the ultimate role ofChloe--giving something of herself for others, in this case, bringingthe family back together. Maybe she was a Jesus figure, falling to herdeath, a little too symbolic/cheesy? Still, overall, it had a lovelymood, and the story tied together subtly at the end.So, I enjoyed this enough to make it well worth my time, and I'llalways look forward to another Egoyan film.

cl777 (2012-05-09 20:30)

No Fatal Attraction or even Basic Instinct. Film literally falls flat

I was drawn to this film due to two things - first, its title is the name of my sweet Labrador, Chloe. Second, the cast seemed strong and the premise quite intriguing - a married woman, believing her husband is cheating on her, hires a call girl to seduce and trap him.Julianne Moore plays the role of a successful but slightly self-conscious woman to perfection. Her husband, Liam Neeson, a handsome professor, is aging gracefully and continuously flirts with his students. Julianne is having a hard time connecting with him and is also out of touch with her son, Michael, who is going through a rebellious teenage phase. Seeking reassurance on her marriage and perhaps some comfort, she sets up a meeting with Amanda Seyfried's character and plots her fateful scheme. The movie is fairly interesting to watch at first but very quickly there are moments that are preposterous and just impossible- chance encounters and text messages, eerie, overly ominous music playing constantly in the background, an out of the blue lesbian scene, a "shoe orgasm" (I'm serious), a reappearing hairpin far too reminiscent of a certain famous ice pick, an ultra modern house with lots of windows... There are many scenes of a sexual nature but without much eroticism- the whole time one senses that there is something brewing underneath that is not quite right. I didn't feel much passion or tension and thought that everything was a bit too fake and trying so hard to stand out that in the end it was just plain bizarre. Amanda plays her character's psychotic side very well however, with her big, blue eyes and pale, innocent looking exterior. But despite good performances the script falls tremendously short. Viewers who expect too much will get very little in return. This film lacks the intelligence of Fatal Attraction or the thrill of Basic Instinct. Sadly, Chloe gets worse and worse as it goes on, ending in a literal and figurative free fall.My rating: 5 Fabio's: 5 Total score: 10/20

(2012-05-09 11:16)

I CAN SEE . . . OR MAYBE NOT

When she suspects her husband David (Neeson) of infidelity, Catherine Stewart (Moore) hires a hooker called Chloe (Seyfried), whose task is to test David's faithfulness and report back to Catherine. Of course, as in real life, things don't always turn out as planned.Like Egoyan's masterpiece "Exotica," but to a lesser extent than that film, "Chloe" underscores how perception and reality are often not the same. There are sufficient surprises and tension, especially sexual tension, throughout the movie to keep the viewer's eyes nailed to the screen. There is also symbolism aplenty. For example, the recurring appearance of glass doors, mirrors, windows, and other glass objects represents the inherent fragility of free will: Glass is a brittle, transparent material through which one can readily see, but in "Chloe" it serves as an ironic contrast to the characters' shortsightedness, their inability to foresee the consequences of their actions.While the plotline may be standard fare, for Egoyan it is no obstacle. His gift lies in his uncanny ability to elicit strong emotions from the viewer, without resorting to sentimentality, and to appeal to the intellect as well. These attributes are the stuff of art, and they are masterfully achieved in "Chloe" through a combination of first-rate acting, a taut script, wonderful cinematography, and a superb film score.The 1.85:1 Blu-ray picture is top-notch. Colors are rich yet natural. Clarity and detail are exceptional in both interior and exterior locations. Nighttime shots reveal ample picture depth, solid blacks, and good shadow detail. I found myself longing for more lingering shots of the wintry Toronto cityscape, conveyed here in a serene, quiet manner redolent of the sublime snowy scenes in Egoyan's "The Sweet Hereafter." Dialogue and ambient sound are clean and crisp, and the soundtrack, consisting largely of Mychael Danna's dreamy, soulful music, comes through with great clarity.In sum, "Chloe" is an engaging and poignant symbol-rich thriller that warrants more than one viewing; it is also a fine antidote to the plethora of vapid films being churned out these days.

Liam Lacey (2012-05-06 16:02)

This is a high-toned erotic thriller, handled with style and some emotionally raw scenes, aiming for an effect that's pleasingly unnerving, if not outright arousing.

Graham Killeen (2012-05-06 02:09)

Sure it's a bit much. But just try tearing your eyes away from the screen.

BTMalinowski (2012-05-06 00:39)

Loved it!

Thrilling erotic adventure with some of the best acting we've seen outof Amanda Seyfreid to date! The direction lulls you in to a wild rideas more of the plot is revealed. MUST SEE. It was so enjoyable to seeToronto finally shot AS TORONTO. It is also noteworthy that Liam Neesoncourageously filmed a portion of this movie after the tragic death ofhis wife. With wild twists and turns. I saw this at the Toronto filmfestival and couldn't have been more pleasantly surprised by theresult. 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 ina great acting performance with her great control of a woman who's lifebegins to spiral out of control.

Serkan Okar (2012-05-05 05:15)

An Atom Egoyan Classic: erotic and suspenseful, intensely emotional

Catherine (Juliane Moore) suspects her husband David (Liam Neeson) ischeating on her so she hires a prostitute named Chloe (Amanda Seyfried)to test her suspicion. She pays her to seduce her husband. If herhusband is seduced, her suspicions would be justified. I think themovie successfully shows the conflict between deepest, subconsciousdesires and the limitation of social roles bound by moral conventions.There is always a chance the people may be taken hostage by theirdesires and no relationship (even a simple business transaction) iseasily dismissed. The movie raises the questions about marriage, loyalty, family anderotic desires. What should married couples do when they lose passionfor each other, the marriage becomes boring and they are tempted byoutside temptations? Should they follow their desires or stay loyal totheir social roles? I thought the story was very interesting and characters werewell-developed and realistic. Story portrays complex interactions amongmany characters, husband and wife, husband with other women, wife'srelation with the prostitute and the couple's son also thrown into themix. I felt that the actions of the characters were in line with theirpersonality. I think Atom Egoyan did a good job of showing the emotionsof the characters. Overall, I think the movie at least deserves arating of 7.