100% John Wick Oct 24
No Score Yet Ouija Oct 24
No Score Yet 23 Blast Oct 24
56% Laggies Oct 24
54% White Bird in a Blizzard Oct 24

Top Box Office

79% Fury $23.7M
88% Gone Girl $17.5M
77% The Book of Life $17.0M
64% Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day $11.5M
8% The Best Of Me $10.0M
23% Dracula Untold $10.0M
47% The Judge $7.9M
31% Annabelle $7.9M
62% The Equalizer $5.4M
63% The Maze Runner $4.4M

Coming Soon

86% Goodbye to Language 3D Oct 29
48% Saw Oct 31
83% Nightcrawler Oct 31
56% Before I Go to Sleep Oct 31
50% Horns Oct 31

Chloe (2010)


Average Rating: 5.8/10
Reviews Counted: 151
Fresh: 77
Rotten: 74

Critics Consensus: Despite its promising pedigree and a titillating premise, Chloe ultimately fails to deliver the heat -- or the thrills -- expected of a sexual thriller.

Average Rating: 5.1/10
Reviews Counted: 37
Fresh: 13
Rotten: 24

Critics Consensus: Despite its promising pedigree and a titillating premise, Chloe ultimately fails to deliver the heat -- or the thrills -- expected of a sexual thriller.


Average Rating: 3/5
User Ratings: 29,943


Movie Info

Catherine, a successful doctor, suspects her husband David, a professor of music, of cheating. She tests his fidelity by hiring an escort to seduce him. Although the couple and their 17-year-old son appear to be the ideal family, their careers and raising a child have put strains on the marriage. Their relationship is suffering greatly from loss of communication and intimacy.Catherine's attempt to catch David cheating creates complications that put her family in danger.

R (for strong sexual content including graphic dialogue, nudity and language)
Mystery & Suspense , Drama
Directed By:
Written By:
Philippe Blasbland , Erin Cressida Wilson , Jacques Fieschi , Anne Fontaine , Philippe Blasband
In Theaters:
Jul 13, 2010
Box Office:
Sony Pictures Classics - Official Site


Friend Ratings

No Friends? Inconceivable! Log in to see what your friends have to say.

Critic Reviews for Chloe

All Critics (152) | Top Critics (37) | Fresh (77) | Rotten (74) | DVD (7)

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… | April 9, 2010
Christian Science Monitor
Top Critic

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

Full Review… | March 31, 2010
Arizona Republic
Top Critic

I enjoyed because the actors don't camp it.

Full Review… | March 29, 2010
At the Movies
Top Critic

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 throws you fatally out of the movie.

Full Review… | March 29, 2010
New York Magazine/Vulture
Top Critic

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's admirably formed torsos.

Full Review… | March 26, 2010
Top Critic

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… | March 26, 2010
Globe and Mail
Top Critic

Becomes more a turnoff than a turn-on.

Full Review… | March 13, 2014
Ozus' World Movie Reviews

Chloe starts off as an intriguing psychological drama - and then veers off into B-movie territory. Yet Moore and Neeson are such classy actors that they can't help but elevate the pulpy material.

Full Review… | August 2, 2012
Movie Talk

The film goes shockingly flat when the more conventional thriller elements--what should be the film's bread and butter--kick in.

Full Review… | April 8, 2012

Egoyan's lyrical, ethereal style is present, but Catherine's motivation and masochistic tendencies seem to emerge out of nowhere.

Full Review… | January 31, 2011

I'm not often a fan of remakes but this intriguing tale has been beautifully told by Oscar nominated director Atom Egoyan.

Full Review… | December 3, 2010
ABC Radio Brisbane

An erotically charged arthouse thriller that will make you squirm in your seat and curse yourself for bringing a date.

Full Review… | October 24, 2010

The liberally featured architecture of Toronto, where Chloe was shot, is outstanding. The film is another matter.

Full Review… | October 15, 2010

Amanda Seyfried is a sweetly vulnerable Chloe; Julianne Moore is cold, brittle and, well, Julianne Moore, as Catherine. Fascinating.

Full Review… | October 15, 2010
MovieTime, ABC Radio National

Pity Egoyan didn't expend that degree of attention on sculpting a more memorable film, especially when you've got the powerhouse potential of Liam Neeson and Julianne Moore at your disposal.

Full Review… | October 15, 2010
The Age (Australia)

That this film takes so long to go off the rails -- when really, it could have been an instant train wreck -- is all down to Moore's poised portrayal.

Full Review… | October 15, 2010
Herald Sun (Australia)

As the film's tone moves from psychological drama to erotic arthouse thriller, slickness and absurdity overpower the playful, treacherous ambiguities it has established.

Full Review… | October 13, 2010
The Age (Australia)

It's doubly disappointing because before everyone turns into clichés this seemed poised to actually say something moderately interesting about love and relationships.

Full Review… | October 11, 2010
The Vine

While the film begins as an intriguing and tense thriller, the latter half veers into ridiculous melodrama.

Full Review… | October 11, 2010
FILMINK (Australia)

The premise doesn?t really hold water and our credulity is stretched, just as it was in Anne Fontaine?s 2003 original, Nathalie

Full Review… | October 9, 2010
Urban Cinefile

A tantalising thriller with explicit sexual content, the film is also a love story, made not so simple by the florid set up and narrative

Full Review… | October 9, 2010
Urban Cinefile

This isn't a particularly deep story but it does a good job at making what would be obvious in a Skinemax movie much more ambiguous.

Full Review… | September 25, 2010

Moore and Seyfried provide the film with an intense breath of authenticity guaranteeing you feel the pain inflicted upon their characters by the plot's extreme circumstances.

Full Review… | August 13, 2010

Given all of its mind games and sex games and seductions through storytelling, it's surprisingly conventional, but... a compelling psychodrama with an elegantly sexy surface.

Full Review… | August 11, 2010

Even with all the sexual prerequisites met, Chloe feels more like a damp domestic drama than a steamy erotic thriller.

Full Review… | August 11, 2010
San Diego Union-Tribune

full review at Movies for the Masses

Full Review… | July 29, 2010
Movies for the Masses

Audience Reviews for Chloe

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.

paul sandberg

Super Reviewer

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 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.

Dean McKenna

Super Reviewer

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 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: 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.

Jim Hunter

Super Reviewer

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

Cassie Hill

Super Reviewer

Chloe Quotes

How do you do this?
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.
Yeah. Yeah people like you walk into my life.
– Submitted by Alicia C (2 years ago)
I liked it. Last night.
Yeah, I liked it, too. I can't say that I didn't.
– Submitted by Daniel K (2 years ago)
You're amazing. You're so beautiful.
– Submitted by Daniel K (2 years ago)
Does this turn you on?
– Submitted by Maria Elizabeth L (2 years ago)
Would you like to buy me a drink?
– Submitted by Maria Elizabeth L (2 years ago)
My husband's cheating on me. At least, I think he is.
– Submitted by Chris P (3 years ago)

Discussion Forum

Discuss Chloe on our Movie forum!