Featured Audience Ratings

• paul s

  
  Chloe is one of those films that is hard to review without revealing too much of the plot. Atom Egoyan has adapted a foreign film, and for my taste, while it has some interesting elements, the pieces of the puzzle just don't quite all fit together, almost as at odds with itself… More
  Chloe is one of those films that is hard to review without revealing too much of the plot. Atom Egoyan has adapted a foreign film, and for my taste, while it has some interesting elements, the pieces of the puzzle just don't quite all fit together, almost as at odds with itself as the film's heroine, Catherine, aptly portrayed by Julianne Moore. What is inferred by the film, and really what drives the action, is Moore's loss of self confidence and her place in the world as she ages. As she states at one point, "one day I was young and knew what to do and then I looked in the mirror and had no idea who I was". This adrift woman, who still holds a great job as a highly sought after gyn, is feeling that she is losing her grip on her family, and hence her identity. Her son is some kind of musical prodigy, who is in therapy and perhaps had some kind of recent breakdown (which further brings into question her abilities as a mother). When the late teen starts acting out and disobeying house rules, Moore is as a loss as to how to deal with him; wanting to discipline, but not wanting to stress him out. So she does nothing and the kid does whatever he wants. This feeling of helplessness colors her vision regarding her husband as well. Liam Neeson portrays the husband, a college professor who frequently guest lectures and spends long hours in faculty meetings and the like. Due to the high stress of both their jobs, plus his long hours, the pair have grown distant from each other. When Neeson misses a flight back home, Moore begins to suspect that Neeson might just be having an affair. So far so good, it's all very plausible, and the motivations are perfectly substantiated. But then you throw the title character into the mix. After a brilliant introduction in which Chloe, a call girl, dresses herself, Chloe's voice tells us that she has been taught just what to say and how to act in satisfying her clients; and when it is done right, then she can just disappear into the persona she's created. Thus far it sounds like you have a really tight psychological piece, and for a time this holds true, until Moore begins to notice Chloe, who works the hotels in the area around Moore's medical office. They finally meet (in a suspicious fashion), and Moore then hires Chloe to seduce her husband, which will give her irrefutable proof that he is unfaithful to her. I suppose this idea has some plausibility, given Moore's somewhat unstable background, but this bold move of a control freak runs counter to her confused persona. Moore follows her initial bad choice with several more questionable ones, again echoing Egoyan's choices in how he presents his film. Too many scenes are just that - scenes, with a set beginning, middle and end - each with a purpose and many either implausible or tottering on absurdity due to bad direction or bad acting in the case of Amanda Seyfried as Chloe. Many of these set pieces were written without an exit strategy. For example, when Moore has been out all night, Neeson is home waiting for her. He asks where she's been, and she then accuses him of infidelity. They begin to argue when sonny boy comes down the stairs and tells them that he can't wait to leave home. End of scene... um, don't you think that this high emotion bit of J'Accuse would and should continue? Guess not. There are fragments of a very good film here, and yet, as the aforementioned scene indicates, there's a bit of disconnect, where things just don't seem logical or real. This sense of disconnect becomes especially prevalent in the last quarter of the film, which devolves into an almost Fatal Attraction wanna be, with all the filmmaking 101 conventions to go with it, including a been there, seen that, finale accompanied by a tag ending. Said tag ending shows Moore entering a room with a party in full swing. She's wearing this terrible sack dress with a large black bow (and this from an upper crust woman of apparently good taste?). She glances across the room at Neeson, who is chatting up some folks (as a good host would do, one could surmise). Neeson then stares back at Moore - I guess this was supposed to carry some weight of some sort, but sadly, after an hour and a half, you have no idea what it's supposed to mean, other than it's intended to mean something. I should also mention another bit right out of screen writing 101. There's an heirloom hairclip that is an all too frequent part of the plot. As Moore turns away from Neeson at film's end, you see that she is wearing the hairclip. This is supposed to be a big "Aha" moment, but once again, it comes off as a bit of heavy handed, "ain't we cool to put that in there" bit of contrivance. I suppose it could be meant to convey a continued connection between the parties involved around the hairpin - which goes against the grain of the last third of the film, but perhaps shows that Moore remains damaged and adrift. Again, the pieces don't always mesh, and it seemed as if Egoyan, who I have great respect for, used a sledge hammer to try to force the pieces to fit. I'd like to see the film Natalie upon which this was based, just to see if there was a more subtle and plausible handling of the material. I suspect that, as usual, Chloe came to Hollywood and lost her way.

• Dean M

  
  Atom Egoyan's remake of French sex puzzle <i>Nathalie</i>, the ending is so disappointing it dilutes the fine lead-up work of the two female leads - doe-eyed Amanda Seyfried (prostitute Chloe) and Julianne Moore (a married 40-something unsure if all-too-charming… More
  Atom Egoyan's remake of French sex puzzle <i>Nathalie</i>, the ending is so disappointing it dilutes the fine lead-up work of the two female leads - doe-eyed Amanda Seyfried (prostitute Chloe) and Julianne Moore (a married 40-something unsure if all-too-charming husband Liam Neeson is cheating). Once Moore enlists Seyfried to "prove" her man's infidelity, it's not hard to see where this erotic thriller is going. Though locations are stark and affecting, and the pace disarmingly languid, there's no excuse for such a cliched conclusion.

• Jim H

  
  A woman who suspects her husband of having an affair hires a hooker to seduce him. Sometimes I'm asked why I hate a certain actor or actress, and now, in the case of Julianne Moore, I can simply say, "Watch <i>Chloe</i>." In every scene in which there were… More
  A woman who suspects her husband of having an affair hires a hooker to seduce him. Sometimes I'm asked why I hate a certain actor or actress, and now, in the case of Julianne Moore, I can simply say, "Watch <i>Chloe</i>." In every scene in which there were two (or more) choices to be made, Moore always picked the most uninteresting one. For example, when Chloe relates her sexual adventures with David, Moore could have presented Catherine as steely eyed and hard, but instead there's some sort of hybrid between stoic acceptance and sexual arousal and weepy hysteria that changes after about fifteen seconds. Her face goes through some sort of seizure, and it becomes the type of display that one would see in a beginning acting class. Regarding the film as a whole, other reviewers have mentioned how the thriller element of this "erotic thriller" falls on its head. I agree, adding that the erotic element also falls on its head. Amanda Seyfried is, of course, beautiful, and Atom Egoyan frames her wonderfully, but she seems out of place as Chloe. Her sweet smile and bright eyes hide no menace, and the actress seems uncomfortable when the character talks so openly about sex. As an example: <i>Basic Instinct</i> is a pretty bad film, but I don't think that people could disagree that Sharon Stone played the villain to perfection because, in part, the openness with which she treated all matters sexual was both enticing and creepy. Compare Stone to Seyfried and you'll find Seyfried like the little girl wearing Mommy's stilettos. Overall, the few glimpses of a partially naked Seyfried are not worth the two hours of bad film you have to sit through; in fact, the whole experience is kind of cheap.

• Cassie H

  
  Utter and complete crap. Not worth the time to watch it.

• Bethany M

  
  Weird in all senses of the word. Disturbing, creepy and scary. Yet you couldn't help but be intrigued and the film was without a doubt extremely good plot. A breath of fresh air, very different from all the films out there.

• Curtis L

  
  Oh boy, another 'sexy movie' with a BIG twist at the end, where the sexy person is actually psycho. Add this one to the other 5000000000

• Shawn E

  
  Chloe is a twisted sexual thriller that focuses on the importance of trust in loved ones and the power of persuasion. The plot becomes very involving as some of the characters make poor decisions and judgments. An excellent band played throughout the film are Raised By Swans (check… More
  Chloe is a twisted sexual thriller that focuses on the importance of trust in loved ones and the power of persuasion. The plot becomes very involving as some of the characters make poor decisions and judgments. An excellent band played throughout the film are Raised By Swans (check them out).

• familiar s

  
  Most of the visionary intellectuals would find this movie as some sort of magnificent creation by Atom Egoyan, but it failed miserably in leaving a good impression on me. The plot was pathetic, if at all you call it a plot.

• Drew S

  
  Underperforming on all cylinders, Chloe might have satisfied audiences fifteen years ago, but now it feels like Atom Egoyan told two highly talented actresses to spar with each other as nonverbally as possible and then filmed the results. Billing itself as an "erotic… More
  Underperforming on all cylinders, Chloe might have satisfied audiences fifteen years ago, but now it feels like Atom Egoyan told two highly talented actresses to spar with each other as nonverbally as possible and then filmed the results. Billing itself as an "erotic thriller," this trip through Demented Whore Land contains only one short burst of true eroticism and essentially no thrills, unless your idea of menace is Amanda Seyfried. She tries (probably a little too hard), but those big luminous eyes and her winning smile are much better equipped for charm than threat. Accepting her as a high-class hooker is no problem; as a clingy stalker she's much less convincing. I do like Seyfried, but here she was a miscast. Julianne Moore doesn't really have much to do except sulk about the lack of sex she's getting or introspectively challenge her husband about where he went the night before. Everything she offers is very emotionally structured and thoughtful, as is the expectation from Moore, but in service of material that's really beneath her. It's like pretty wrapping paper on a present that you don't want and that's trying really hard to be sexy. Nothing is sexier than being able to relate, however, and Egoyan has put together a surprisingly botched picture of a situation that doesn't feel convincing at all. Mostly I'm bothered by the fact that the narrative revolves around a whore who is unable to comprehend that she provides a service, instead opting to freak out on her client after the job is done. I mean, how long has she been a whore? She can't be that successful if this is how she treats all her johns. Furthermore, Egoyan seems oddly reluctant to give this any sort of temporal stamp. Chloe, in a cringe-inducing moment of uncoolness, asks one character if he has a "page." You know, like Facebook or Myspace, but not even that specific - just a "page." I think the attempts to keep it neutral are in service of the film's supposed eroticism, because finding something erotic means being able to put yourself in its context. Egoyan probably feared that using one particular website would date the film, unfortunately ignorant of the fact that the subject matter itself does the trick beautifully. Chloe guns for a sort of "this could happen to you!" construction, but in the end it backfires, feeling totally overworked and silly. The film has at least a few laughs, probably not enough to justify sticking with it for an hour and a half, but after a few shots it might provide enough unintentional trashy entertainment to sustain itself.

• Nate Z

  
  Director Atom Egoyan, working simply as a director, brings some serious heat to this somewhat lurid and Euro trashy art house potboiler. Egoyan gives the movie a credibility that it might otherwise lack. It starts promisingly enough with a doctor (Julinne Moore) convinced that her… More
  Director Atom Egoyan, working simply as a director, brings some serious heat to this somewhat lurid and Euro trashy art house potboiler. Egoyan gives the movie a credibility that it might otherwise lack. It starts promisingly enough with a doctor (Julinne Moore) convinced that her husband (Liam Neeson) is cheating on her with his younger students. So to prove her suspicions, she hires a sexy call girl to seduce her husband. Chloe (Amanda Seyfried) agrees to help, but nobody seems to fully understand the magnitude of the consequences as Chloe inserts herself more into the family. For a solid hour, the movie offers some tantalizing drama about infidelity, doubt, and the nature of attraction. Then the movie shifts focus after a few tawdry, but effectively steamy, sex scenes. Sadly, the movie abandons the smaller-scale drama for lame thriller shenanigans. Chloe becomes a spurned lover pushed to the edge, like a third rate Fatal Attraction. At that point, Chloe just completely unravels into an unremarkable late-night Cinemax thriller. Even the gratuitous nudity feels tacky, and as a red-blooded heterosexual male, that's a statement that makes me depressed. Nate's Grade: C+

• Derek D

  
  An erotic thriller that tries to be a more seductively twisted modern version of Fatal Attraction. Julianne Moore plays a Gynocologist who tests her flirty husband's fidelity by hiring a callgirl to seduce him, but as her details become more and more lurid, she finds herself… More
  An erotic thriller that tries to be a more seductively twisted modern version of Fatal Attraction. Julianne Moore plays a Gynocologist who tests her flirty husband's fidelity by hiring a callgirl to seduce him, but as her details become more and more lurid, she finds herself getting more turned on and drawn to her instead. The movie wastes no time in getting down to the main course, leading up to a very predictable and disappointing finish. The acting is right there, very good in all aspects, but the script has very little to it and ends up leaving you depressed as all hell. The film could've been much better, but relies too heavily on eroticism in such a short time.

• c0up  

  
  'Chloe'. A twisted erotic thriller that used doubt and perspective really well, and didn't go where I expected it to o_o

• KJ P

  
  Chloe is an extremely twisted suspense romance that grabs you by your soul and makes you love every character and you don't want anything to happen to any of them. Obviously that doesn't happen in a movie, which makes this movie so amazing. Not only does Chloe have such a… More
  Chloe is an extremely twisted suspense romance that grabs you by your soul and makes you love every character and you don't want anything to happen to any of them. Obviously that doesn't happen in a movie, which makes this movie so amazing. Not only does Chloe have such a moving (twisted) way of making a brilliant story, but it is also easily one of the best films of the year. Truly one of the best Canadian films I've ever seen! Chloe is unexpectedly brilliant!

• Jake .

  
  Chloe really is not ... bad. It is good, even; but it has the potential of greatness, but never really reaches it, which makes the end product a bit of a mess - sort of like this sentence. The story is strong, the characters are strong, the acting is great, the style is pleasantly… More
  Chloe really is not ... bad. It is good, even; but it has the potential of greatness, but never really reaches it, which makes the end product a bit of a mess - sort of like this sentence. The story is strong, the characters are strong, the acting is great, the style is pleasantly sterile and the directing competent. Somehow, the finished product just does not end up being that notable. I think it's mostly because while there is a lot of material, nothing is really explored that much. It's a bit busy. Chloe's character especially needed to be developed further. She just isn't concrete or developed enough to be understood. I really liked Julianne Moore?s character and she was easy to sympasize with. The husband and son, like Chloe, were just too detached and vague to understand or care about. On a side note, I still think that he was cheating on her, but that's neither here nor there. The film really is good and fascinating to watch. It's just frustrating to see so much potential genius laid waste.

• Daniel P

  
  Toronto director Atom Egoyan's latest tells the story of a bizarre love triangle, with just enough Hitchcock dust to make this a neurotic and creepy and sexy little flick. Tiny cast: I think eight actors have lines. Julianne Moore, Liam Neeson and Amanda Seyfried are all solid as… More
  Toronto director Atom Egoyan's latest tells the story of a bizarre love triangle, with just enough Hitchcock dust to make this a neurotic and creepy and sexy little flick. Tiny cast: I think eight actors have lines. Julianne Moore, Liam Neeson and Amanda Seyfried are all solid as believable, rounded characters - which might be what makes this story unsettlling. Everything they do is justifiable, but is anything they do right? Worth watching - a return to form by Egoyan that's at once similar to and different from his career to date. Just noir enough.

• Gordon A

  
  Lesser work from Egoyan but interesting to see him have a go at a more traditional Hollywood love triangle and Seyfried and Moore make an engaging 'couple'.

• Nani V

  
  Not a very strong movie, but worth a watch. Seyfried's character never really developed in the movie; which might have made the it a bit more interesting. Amanda Seyfried plays Chloe, a prostitute who is hired by Julianne Moore's character to hit on her husband, Liam… More
  Not a very strong movie, but worth a watch. Seyfried's character never really developed in the movie; which might have made the it a bit more interesting. Amanda Seyfried plays Chloe, a prostitute who is hired by Julianne Moore's character to hit on her husband, Liam Neeson, who she suspects has been cheating on her.

• Nicki M

  
  Good, but hoped it would be better. The main problem with this is that we never really get to know what Chloe's issue is exactly. I mean, you can gather she lost her mother, and that's why she's fixated on Julianne Moore's character, but you never find out how,… More
  Good, but hoped it would be better. The main problem with this is that we never really get to know what Chloe's issue is exactly. I mean, you can gather she lost her mother, and that's why she's fixated on Julianne Moore's character, but you never find out how, or why such a beautiful young girl with so much going for her would be working as a prostitute. The ending is also strange, although they filmed it beautifully.

• Sanjaya &

  
  Great erotic thriller from Atom Egoyan... Teamed up 3 brilliant actors in a single movie : Liam Neeson, Julianne Moore, and Amanda Seyfried, was a great idea after I saw their performance in this movie... The flow goes by so slowly, but it becomes more interesting and interesting… More
  Great erotic thriller from Atom Egoyan... Teamed up 3 brilliant actors in a single movie : Liam Neeson, Julianne Moore, and Amanda Seyfried, was a great idea after I saw their performance in this movie... The flow goes by so slowly, but it becomes more interesting and interesting again... Even somehow I can predict the plot, but it still a pleasure how this movie going really well...

• Josh L

  
  Chloe is an undeniably enjoyable and evocative movie for the first 2/3 before it transforms into something I didn't see coming... and in this case the surprise in store throws everything off the deep end. The performances are pretty good, but the actors deserved a better ending… More
  Chloe is an undeniably enjoyable and evocative movie for the first 2/3 before it transforms into something I didn't see coming... and in this case the surprise in store throws everything off the deep end. The performances are pretty good, but the actors deserved a better ending to this movie. The screenplay is way too ridiculous by the end. It just feels like a cheap way for everything to be resolved without having to deal with the issues it presented. It really irritates me that the first 2/3 was so good because this movie was turning into a solidly enjoyable little thriller, but I guess it just wasn't meant to be.

Read all 20 featured audience ratings