Chloe poster & wallpaper
Get movie widget Recommend it Add to Favorites

Liam Neeson, Julianne Moore, Amanda Seyfried, R.H. Thomson, Nina Dobrev ... see more see more... , Mishu Vellani , Julie Khaner , Laura DeCarteret , Natalie Lisinska , Tiffany Knight , Meghan Heffern , Arlene Duncan , Kathy Maloney , Rosalba Martinni , Tamsen McDonough , Kathryn Kriitmaa , Adam Waxman , Krysta Carter , Severn Thompson , Sarah Casselman , David Reale , Milton Barnes , Kyla Tingley , Sean Orr , Paul Essiembre , Rod Wilson

An untrusting wife attempts to prove that her husband is cheating by hiring an escort to seduce him, inadvertently endangering her entire family in the process. Catherine (Julianne Moore) is a respect... read more read more...ed doctor, and her husband, David (Liam Neeson), is a dedicated music professor. They've been married for years and have a teenage son together, but lately the passion has faded from their romance. The morning after David misses his flight home -- and the elaborate surprise birthday party Catherine had planned to celebrate his return -- Catherine finds a text message on his phone that leads her to believe her husband is sleeping with a female student. Her suspicions grow over the following weeks, and when Catherine has a run-in with an escort named Chloe (Amanda Seyfried), she hires the ravishing blonde to test her husband's fidelity. After each encounter with David, Chloe reports back to Catherine with all the sordid details. But the further the experiment goes, the less clear Chloe's motivations for taking part in it become, and the more the untrusting wife begins to fear that the situation has spiraled out of control. Directed by Atom Egoyan (The Sweet Hereafter, Ararat), this erotic thriller is a remake of Anne Fontaine's French film Nathalie..., and was adapted by Erin Cressida Wilson. ~ Jason Buchanan, Rovi

Flixster Users

40% liked it

27,601 ratings

Critics

50% liked it

147 critics

R, 1 hr. 39 min.

Directed by: Atom Egoyan

Release Date: March 26, 2010

Invite friends to see

DVD Release Date: July 13, 2010

Get It:

Stats: 2,612 reviews

report incorrect info

Photos

chloe chloe in the mirror to scheme a "feedback" the bicycle "accident" the deal chloe gets chest-fallen the final confrontation it's over the hairpin Chloe Chloe Chloe Chloe Chloe Chloe chloe Chloe Chloe
Upload a Photo | View All Chloe Photos

Your Rating


clear rating

Flixster Reviews (2,612)

  • paulsandberg
    November 29, 2011
    paulsandberg
    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 a... read mores 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.
  • deano
    September 21, 2011
    deano
    Atom Egoyan's remake of French sex puzzle Nathalie, 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 Nees... read moreon 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.
  • hunterjt13
    August 7, 2011
    hunterjt13
    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 Chloe." In every scene in which there were two (or more) choices ... read moreto 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: Basic Instinct 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.
  • movieguru12
    July 6, 2011
    movieguru12
    Utter and complete crap. Not worth the time to watch it.
  • murphmann93
    June 23, 2011
    murphmann93
    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.
  • puffchunk
    March 27, 2011
    puffchunk
    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
  • shawnewing92
    March 14, 2011
    shawnewing92
    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 (che... read moreck them out).
  • imrealgod
    February 19, 2011
    imrealgod
    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.
  • ceWEBrity
    January 12, 2011
    ceWEBrity
    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," t... read morehis 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.
  • mrbungle7821
    December 20, 2010
    mrbungle7821
    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 h... read moreer 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+

View All Chloe Reviews

Critic Reviews

Peter Rainer
April 9, 2010
Peter Rainer, Christian Science Monitor

Many intriguing psychological crosscurrents roil this scenario, but Egoyan too often lapses into a soft-core dreamland. The film somehow manages to be both a turn-on and a turnoff. Full Review

Bill Goodykoontz
March 31, 2010
Bill Goodykoontz, Arizona Republic

The story is the problem here, devolving into a ridiculous situation that produces far more groans than chills or thrills. Full Review

Michael Phillips
March 29, 2010
Michael Phillips, At the Movies

I enjoyed because the actors don't camp it. Full Review

David Edelstein
March 29, 2010
David Edelstein, New York Magazine

Egoyan is an expert at isolating people, but he's less sure of himself when it comes to how they connect. So what happens to the character of Chloe is the worst kind of surprise, the "Huh?" that throw... Full Review

Dana Stevens
March 26, 2010
Dana Stevens, Slate

The only Verhoeven element that's missing is deliberate camp, a healthy ladling of which might have made Chloe worth watching for some reason other than the prospect of glimpsing Seyfried's and Moore'... Full Review

Liam Lacey
March 26, 2010
Liam Lacey, Globe and Mail

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. Full Review

A.O. Scott
March 26, 2010
A.O. Scott, New York Times

As it slides wearily into worn-out sex thriller conventions, Chloe becomes tedious and mechanical. When it's over, you're left feeling kind of cheap.

Tom Long
March 26, 2010
Tom Long, Detroit News

Atom Egoyan gets the erotic stuff right but pretty much drops the thriller part on its head. Full Review

Richard Roeper
March 26, 2010
Richard Roeper, Richard Roeper.com

It's a "Fatal Attraction" wannabe with some admittedly erotic scenes--but the script is from the "Basic Instinct 2" playbook. Full Review

Ann Hornaday
March 26, 2010
Ann Hornaday, Washington Post

Chloe descends into a preposterous third act that, by any measure, qualifies as a disaster. But it's proof of Egoyan's skill that the film works for as long as it does. Full Review

Critic ratings and reviews powered by RottenTomatoes.com

Fresh (60% or more critics rated the movie positively)

Rotten (59% or fewer critics rated the movie positively)

Cast

More Like This

Click a thumb to vote on that suggestion, or add your own suggestions.

  • Nathalie
    Nathalie (98%)
  • Fatal Attraction
    Fatal Attraction (97%)
  • Basic Instinct
    Basic Instinct (100%)
  • Heartbeats
    Heartbeats (100%)

More Movies like Chloe

Facts

Submit a Fact | View All
    • Catherine: How do you do this?
    • Chloe: I try to find something to love in everybody. Even if it's a small thing. Something about the way someone smiles. There's always something, there has to be. I try to make myself generous. I do things I don't want to do. I... I think about what not to criticize. And the strangest things come back to me.
    • Catherine: Like?
    • Chloe: You.
    • Catherine: Me?
    • Chloe: Yeah. Yeah people like you walk into my life.
    • Chloe: I liked it. Last night.
    • Catherine: Yeah, I liked it, too. I can't say that I didn't.
    • Catherine: You're amazing. You're so beautiful.
    • Chloe: Does this turn you on?
    • Chloe: Would you like to buy me a drink?
    • Catherine: My husband's cheating on me. At least, I think he is.
Submit a Fact | View All

Chloe : Watch Free on TV

Chloe Trivia

  • The disturbing 1995 movie Kids, which deals with HIV and drugs in teenagers, stars these two well known actresses:  Answer »
  • What is the name of Ryan's ex-girlfriend in "Cellular"?  Answer »
  • In the movie Hotel Rwanda, Noxolo Magashalala plays the role of Chloe, the prostitute.  Answer »
  • Which famous couple did Gary Oldman and Chloe Webb play in the 1986 film of the same name?  Answer »
More Chloe Trivia

Movie Quizzes

No quizzes for Chloe. Want to create one?

Video Clips

Upload a Video |

All Chloe Videos

Meet Other Fans

Add Chloe to favorites

Recent News

Submit a Story |

View Chloe News

Recent Lists

Make a List |

View All Lists

Most Popular Skin

No skins yet. Interested in creating one?