Chloe (2009) Online

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 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!

This film reminded me of the 90's wave of erotic thrillers. It's got all the elements, including a healthy dose of softcore sex scenes which surprised me because Amanda Seyfried has such an endearing, innocent look about her. But she's such a good actress though that this doesn't prevent her from convincingly playing the role of seductive call girl Chloe. Julianne Moore plays Catherine, a gynecologist who suspects her flirtatious husband (Liam Neeson) is having an affair with one of his students. While at work Catherine observes Chloe entering and exiting hotels with several men so she can make a pretty good guess at Chloe's profession. Catherine decides to use Chloe as bait to see if her husband would submit to the temptation of an affair with Chloe.

And even though that is the basic storyline, there is so much more that is left unsaid; things Catherine thinks she knows but doesn't know about her husband, things Chloe knows about Catherine that Catherine herself doesn't even know; and in the middle of it all, the viewer who finds out we didn't know much at all about it all. The audience is pretty much kept in the dark as to what is really going on with Chloe until one small scene that immediately switches the direction of the movie. It's not one of those hokey melodramatic twists, but will definitely have you playing back the entire movie in your mind because it sheds everything in a new light. Chloe brags at the beginning of the film, in a voice-over narration, that she has the gift of intuiting what people want and need without it being said. She can be all things to all people. And unfortunately for Julianne Moore's character, Chloe is exactly right....just not in the way that you might initially think she is.

What makes this movie good is that it has layers. Just as in real life, people are inevitably much different than what they appear to be on the surface. In a lesser film, the characters and plot would be one-dimensional and by far less interesting.

If anyone was suited for remaking the French film Nathalie, it was Atom Egoyan, whose deeply twisted and occasionally perverse studies of sexuality, expressed through an apparently cold directorial eye, go hand in hand with a script that emphasized words over images (though there is a bit more flesh in the English-language transition). Hence the rather brilliant Chloe, whose prime accomplishment lies in its being less showy and pretentious than the director's previous foray into erotic secrets, the ambitious Where the Truth Lies.

Set in Egoyan's home town of Toronto, Chloe tells the story of the eponymous call girl (Amanda Seyfried) who is hired by gynecologist Catherine Stewart (Julianne Moore) when the latter starts to suspect her husband (Liam Neeson) is having an affair. Chloe's job is to casually approach him and see if he falls for her charm, thus indicating his propensity for adultery. However, as the girl's reports get more and more graphic, Catherine realizes she has put herself in an awkward position, one that it will be difficult to get out of.

A fascinating hybrid between psychological drama and erotic thriller (there's a vague hint of Fatal Attraction throughout the movie), Chloe is a rarity due to its attempt to analyze sex and its consequences without necessarily resorting to openly titillating imagery (a characteristic Egoyan shares with another Canadian maestro, David Cronenberg). The only downside of this approach is the same flaw that was much more evident in Where the Truth Lies, namely a deliberately slow pace that affects the thriller aspects but enhances the emotional poignancy, something that comes off as a paradox given the seemingly cold subject matter.

Furthermore, there is no coldness to be found in the carefully crafted performances: Neeson and Moore play the troubled couple with conviction, especially when things start getting more complicated (Moore's suspicious wife is a tour de force turn that should have received some award recognition), but the heart of the film lies, quite predictably, in Seyfried's hands, and she rises to the challenge by proving that she can do Big Love-style quality work on the big screen, embodying a complex, intriguing character light years away from her roles in Mamma Mia! and Mean Girls.

Overall, Chloe is a very good movie: sexy without being gratuitous, psychological without getting pompous and, like its title character, delightfully surprising.

When David (Liam Neeson) misses his flight home from New York and, as a result, the surprise party his wife Catherine (Julianne Moore) has planned for him, Catherine is forced to swallow her disappointment and any suspicions and return to the waiting guests. Reading a text message sent to David's phone the following morning from one of his female students, Catherine's fear grows. More suspicious than ever that David is having an affair, Catherine seeks out Chloe (Amanda Seyfried), an escort, hiring her to test David's fidelity.

Chloe is a very solid thriller. Extremely engaging and incredibly entertaining, this story is ultimately about human nature and instincts. The film really grabs your attention and visually, it's quite a feat. The minimalistic sets and the way it was shot give this film a really modern and slick look. I feel like I should warn that there's quite a bit of nudity and somewhat graphic scenes but nothing outrageous or out of place.

Moore was absolutely terrific, she has proved her value already but here she delivers possibly one of the best performances of her career. Seyfried was quite a surprise. Her performance was subtle but very efficient and she seems a very promising young actress. Liam Neeson was not nearly as good as he usually is but it's understandable considering his wife died during the shooting of the film.

As I said, Chloe is a very solid and well done film. Unfortunately it has one major flaw, the predictably of the plot. I saw the twist coming from a mile way and I think any avid movie-goer will too. Still, it was a great watch, very entertaining and extremely well acted. Worth seeing.

7/10

Atom Egoyan ('The Sweet Hereafter', 'Ararat', 'Where the Truth Lies') has a gift for setting up cinematic surveillance of private encounters and studying the results of an incident on everyone witnessing it. In CHLOE he has engaged the services of Erin Cressida Wilson to adapt the French film NATHALIE by Anne Fontaine to place it on this side of the pond. In the French version the successful actors were Fanny Ardant, Emmanuelle Béart, and Gérard Depardieu: for this version Egoyan has an equally superb cast to carry off this mysterious story with great success. The same question arises in both films: 'what is imagined and what is real?', and it is the getting there that makes this film so fascinating.

Catherine Stewart (Julianne Moore) is a gynecologist married to the successful professor of music David (Liam Neeson) and they have a stay-at-home hippie son Michael (Max Thieriot) who goes about his life much the same as his parents: there is superficial companionship but little in depth relationship. The marriage seems satisfactory until Catherine plans a surprise birthday party for David, a party David doesn't attend, and Catherine suspects David of having affairs, a fact that David apparently suggests by his flirtations with waitresses and 'help'. Catherine is shocked, but realizes that as she is aging this may be a normal situation in older marriages.

Catherine visits a bar, a private club for assignations, and there she meets Chloe (Amanda Seyfried) and eventually buys Chloe's services as a prostitute to meet her husband and then tell her all about the encounters. It is agreed that Chloe will be paid for her services and only go as far as Catherine instructs. From this point on Catherine and Chloe meet after Chloe has encounters with David and describes the acts of the encounters in vivid and lurid detail. Catherine is fascinated and continues to pay Chloe for on going encounters and subsequent voyeuristic descriptions. Catherine even has a one-night stand of her own with Chloe in an attempt to understand her husband's need for infidelity.

Despite the setup of 'private investigator and prostitute detective' the two women become friends. When Catherine realizes she has enough evidence against David to leave him there is a final encounter of the three (Catherine, David, Chloe, and even son Michael) that brings the ingenious surprise ending - an ending too fine to share as it would spoil the film for viewers new to the story. Each of the actors does a star turn - Julianne Moore, Amanda Seyfried, and Liam Neeson - and once again Atom Egoyan takes an implausible story and makes us think.

Grady Harp

This film is about a doctor who suspects her husband to be cheating. She hires a prostitute to test her suspicion, which spirals out of control beyond anyone's imagination.

If there is a sub-genre called sexual thriller, "Chloe" would be the prototype. The plot works very well, it's very engaging. The sexual mystery and tension are captivating, and the copious nudity does not even come across as over the top or contrived. Just as you thought you guessed the whole plot, it twists in the most dramatic way. There is so much suspense, excitement and mystery to the story. "Chloe" is a very good film with a wow factor, that keeps me glued to the screen.

Saw CHLOE last night. I love all of Atom Egoyan's films and this was no exception. We were warned going in that the movie was going to be sexually graphic. While this movie was highly erotic it was done extremely tastefully. Other directors would have gone more and cheapened it. Toward the end I was afraid we were heading for another Fatal Attraction but fortunately did not go that way. This was Julianne Moore's movie, no doubt, and I am rather surprised at the amount of nudity she showed. And Amanda Seyfried was HOT! Liam Neeson is almost a footnote in this film but he shows what a professional he is to do a film of this type after his family tragedy. I think this was the most erotic movie Egoyan's done since Exotica. Highly recommended.

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 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.

2/6/18. I decided to catch this because Julianne Moore has been such a surprise in recent years. Her range is phenomenal! Ever since she won the Oscar for 2015's "Still Alice" (watch it!) I have been trying to catch her other movies. She can pretty much play anything, if given the chance. I'm glad I caught this one. Moore plays a doctor who suspects her husband (Neeson) is cheating on her. She hires an escort (Seyfried) to seduce him. In the process, Moore and Seyfried become sexually involved. Only Moore could have pulled off the complexity of her character, a woman torn between too many desires that threaten to overwhelm her. Worth catching.

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 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!

A great cast are wasted on a pretty dire script. I suppose they thought they were making something insightful about the nature of trust or something, but it's a pretty average thriller which retreads the same path so many other thrillers have. I must admit I found it rather annoying that we are shown scenes that didn't happen (yes, I know none of it actually happened!). It would have been more acceptable to me if the scenes of Chloe's imagined relationship with the David, the husband (Liam Neeson) had been given a voice-over by her. That would have indicated that the action could have been taking place in her head.

It was very Hollywood, in spite of its pretensions to being meaningful. For example, Julianne Moore's character Catherine is worried that she's getting old, but this being Hollywood she's not allowed to look anything other than stunning for the majority of the time. Plus, she indulges in a bit of lesbianism at the drop of a hat because we all know that every woman has an inner lesbian dying to get out. Honestly, you could have cast Shannon Tweed in the role! Chloe's motivation seemed very vague. She's a prostitute, so I suppose we are meant to take that as shorthand for her being a DAMAGED PERSON. I came to the conclusion that she was after Catherine's wardrobe. Chloe wears endless pretty outfits (she seems to have a limitless number of coats) and has a shoegasm whilst being diddled by Catherine's son. She won't look at him, but fixes her gaze on Moore's shoes and clothes (she's being diddled in Catherine's bedroom btw).

It had a typical Hollywood ending, the outside influence who is trying to break up the family unit is killed. The only surprising thing about it was that she wasn't stabbed with the antique hair slide that we'd been shown several times. It reminded me of those yuppie-in-peril films of the late 80s/early 90s like Consenting Adults and Pacific Heights.

The Atom Egoyan behind Chloe is not the auteur behind films like Erotica and The Sweet Hereafter, but he weaves it in the right direction, 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 going commercial 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 she hires a local prostitute to seduce him, and report back with news. The things that Chloe has to say really turn on Dr. Stewart, and the two women start to fall for each other. But when Catherine decides it is time to pull the plug, Chloe isn't so eager to go away.

Chloe grows increasingly eerie, and profound, which draws you in, but in the last twenty minutes, it comes close to falling apart. The picture benefits greatly from by Paul Sarossy's cinematography featuring nuances of harsh light and warm colour tones, that highlight all the interiors. What we have here a classy looking B-movie. It is intriguing but not great art.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

I like director Egoyan. "The Sweet Hearafter" is a truly remarkable film but "Chloe" goodness gracious me! Just look at the ladies wardrobe and tell me if you can guess what was in Egoyan's mind. Julianne Moore is fun to watch but she does what she usually does, she acts. I'm always so aware of her acting that I'm distracted out of the story. Liam Neeson seems utterly lost and the girl? Amanda Sygfried? Oh, mama mia! She looks like a grotesque blueprint for a new Goldie Hawn. I thought her was one of the worst performances I've seen in a long long time. I suspect Egoyan's intentions were mostly commercial. Naked lesbian scenes...close ups of boobs and the whole thing is irritating and annoying. The saving grace is the unintentional laughs it provokes. I laughed a lot I must confess but the film, shot beautifully, is an ugly mess

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 wife...wtf

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.

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

Chloe is an erotic thriller that's essentially a tamer lesbian version of Fatal Attraction. Comparing it to Fatal Attraction it comes off badly as never really gets that gritty and tense, but, in its own right, it's a good movie with plenty to offer... like Amanda Seyfried's chest.

Whilst it was predictable and formulaic I certainly can't say I was ever bored. I'm probably being far too generous with my rating due to loving the lezzing up and Amanda Seyfried's rather excellent rack but it's worth watching just for the scene where the Chloe character has an orgasm over a rack of shoes; had me pissing myself. So for those who have an appreciation for Amanda Seyfried and her awesome rack and lesbian sex then this is a 7; if not then a 5.

This is probably the worst film I've seen this year despite having a lesbian scene! It has a predictable climax, before descending into a ridiculous finale.

Before then, there is gratuitous sex... in the form of descriptions and scenes. This includes a barely believable lesbian scene between Julianne Moore's character, and 'Chloe' who has bedded her husband at her request. Except Chloe hasn't really. She made up fictional encounters with the husband just to make Julianne (sorry, can't remember her name in the film) jealous and upset. When Julianne realises the truth, Chloe is busy seducing their son. Then Julianne and Chloe have a confrontation in Julianne's bedroom (her son and Chloe are lying in bed), resulting in Chloe falling out of a window to her death.

Don't bother, really.

Atom Egoyan has made some fine films where the mysteries of the human psyche are gradually illuminated while his stories unfold at a measured pace. Unfortunately "Chloe" has none of his habitual subtlety, and its narrative arc has the credibility of a daytime TV soap opera. Essentially a re-make of the French film "Natalie", the setting has been transferred to an overcast, wintry Toronto where a doctor, Catherine, suspects her flirtatious husband could be playing away from home. A lazy screenwriter might seize upon the idea that a suspicious wife will promptly hire a prostitute private-eye if she suspects her spouse of infidelity - so that's the course Catherine is obliged to take. Nobody should be surprised that this unwise decision leads to complications when call-girl Chloe loses her professional detachment as she pursues her investigations, and the two women become entangled in a Sapphic relationship of their own. Little reason is given for this development - or much else that follows - and the film is fatally handicapped by a wooden script that manages to be both clichéd and implausible. The major plot twist can be seen clunking down the icy street from a mile away, and until it arrives Julianne Moore's Catherine spends the duration looking brittle and neurotic, while Amanda Seyfried's Chloe lacks any kind of erotic allure with her simpering coquettish airs, and Liam Neeson's supposedly charming academic possesses the depth of a cardboard cut-out. Since none of the main characters are likable or believable, it requires considerable effort to muster more than the shrug of a shoulder when the film culminates in predictable overblown melodrama.