Chloe (15)

Film

Thrillers

Chloe03.jpg

Time Out rating:

<strong>Rating: </strong><span class='lf-avgRating'>3</span>/5

User ratings:

<strong>Rating: </strong><span class='lf-avgRating'>3</span>/5
Rate this
 

Time Out says

Tue Mar 2 2010

Atom Egoyan only directs – not writes – this more slick, less subtle but still enjoyably barmy remake of ‘Nathalie’, the 2003 film which saw a middle-aged Parisian (Fanny Ardant) employ a hooker (Emmanuelle Béart) to seduce her philandering husband (Gérard Depardieu) and report on the details.

There was something so French about the original (the implicit acceptance of adultery, for one) that it’s not surprising that the emphasis has changed so that the affairs of the husband (Liam Neeson) are less certain and more of a possibility that prompts the hiring of Chloe (Amanda Seyfried) by his wife (Julianne Moore).

But there’s a literalism that disappoints: just when you’re enjoying the suggestion that the entire set-up is reflective of the wife’s turmoil or, at least, her mid-life crisis, the story takes a silly turn into stalker-thriller territory. Egoyan’s style is strictly arthouse-accessible: soft colours and dark shadows; modern architecture; a hint of erotica and the odd nipple shot.
0

Reviews

Add +

Release details

Rated:

15

UK release:

Fri Mar 5, 2010

Duration:

99 mins

Cast and crew

Director:

Atom Egoyan

Screenwriter:

Erin Cressida Wilson

Cast:

Liam Neeson, Julianne Moore, Amanda Seyfried

Users say

0
<strong>Rating: </strong><span class='lf-avgRating'>0</span>/5

Average User Rating

2.7 / 5

Rating Breakdown

  • 5 star:1
  • 4 star:1
  • 3 star:2
  • 2 star:2
  • 1 star:0
LiveReviews|7
1 person listening
John Cooper

As Liam Nesson says in the `special features` on the DVD this is not a typical `American` film, and, in my views, efforts to maintain a European sensibility in the re-make have been largely successful . . .Good performances assist Polanski's sensitive direction and the result is a compelling drama about the complexity of sexuality and emotional needs. Amanda Seyfried is mesmerising as the enigmatic Chloe, and Julianne Moore is equally effective as the wife with a mid-life crisis. The film is less effective in its portrayal of male characters, who seem one-dimensional in contrast to their female counterparts .. . This is down to the female screenwriter . . who, despite doing a pretty good job on the whole, is less concerned with male psychology . . .Most of the dialogue in the film is between women . . . . those interested in Lesbian Porn should find this film especially fascinating ( I know of one one girls, secondary school in Camden, London with feminist leanings, who might take some covert pleasure in certain bedroom scenes )

keith

excellent film with credible women keeping abreast of their man. Great depth of erotica from both women.

keith

excellent film with credible women keeping abreast of their man. Great depth of erotica from both women.

Robert Thornton

I thought the film was very good with the interesting twist which I suddenly realised with some shock. Spoiler >> The big let down was the ending with Chloe going out the window which would be quite impossible, there must have been a better way of removing Chloe from their lives. Julianne Moore's acting was really heartfelt as it usually is.

philmk

Interesting if unconvincing story of interaction of fears and desires between husband, wife, son and hired temptress. Nice nipple shots.

Pamela Meadows

Disappointing. Good performances outweighed by script that appeared to have been written by a committee, so that characters behave in a bizarre way and all sorts of loose ends are dropped in but then not developed.