Chloe

Chloe_360P

👍👍👍

Chloe-1080P

Chloe-720P

Chloe-480P

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.

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.

I went to see this film tonight for no other reason than I ran out of other things to go see where I live. It was a very pleasant surprise but it left me with unresolved thoughts; unresolved thoughts concerning the acting abilities of Amanda Seyfried as the title character. Wow. The premise for this film is a bit on the offbeat side, but I like offbeat if it's done well., and this one is certainly done well. The Julianne Moore character hires Seyfried to check out if her husband has a wandering eye; played by the ever talented Liam Neeson. The story that unfolds is just this side of bizarre, but it works. I even liked the different location - in this case Toronto. Watching the cold wet weather makes me want to move there. The film builds, as some do, on human frailty, fear, miscommunication and misunderstanding, sprinkled with a liberal dose of leaping to conclusions and making rash assumptions. That little voice inside me was whispering to me, "Why can people not be more honest and forthcoming in their dealings with loved ones.". Nothing in human relations could be more important but is more neglected. The most surprising thing, as I mentioned before, is the terrific talent of Amanda Seyfried. I just saw her recently in "Letters to Juliette", in which she was excellent and not too long ago in "Dear John". I found myself thinking about her performances in those films and also in the not too distant "Mama Mia". I couldn't help but marvel at the unmistakable talent she displays here so easily and so frequently. By the end of the film the thought that flashed through my head was, "She's the actress Marilyn Monroe wishes she was"; which is to say, this girl can really act. On top of that, she has a face and figure a few million other girls would kill for and she casually shows that amazing physique a number of times throughout the film. In spite of that, I'd rather see her acting performance. She is really something and I'm glad to see she's getting more notice and more work. I can't wait to see much more of her in years to come.

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.

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 from Paris to a wintry Toronto where a doctor, Catherine, suspects her husband could be playing away from home. The idea that a wife will hire a prostitute private-eye if she suspects her spouse of infidelity is desperate screenwriting - but that's the course Catherine is obliged to take. Needless to say, call-girl Chloe loses her professional detachment as she pursues her investigations, and the two women become entangled in a Sapphic relationship. 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. Julianne Moore's Catherine spends the duration looking brittle, 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 charisma 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 concludes with some overblown melodrama.