Opening

27% Transcendence Apr 18
—— A Haunted House 2 Apr 18
54% Heaven Is for Real Apr 16
—— Bears Apr 18
62% Fading Gigolo Apr 18

Top Box Office

89% Captain America: The Winter Soldier $41.3M
49% Rio 2 $39.3M
72% Oculus $12.0M
63% Draft Day $9.8M
77% Noah $7.6M
40% Divergent $7.4M
15% God's Not Dead $5.5M
92% The Grand Budapest Hotel $4.1M
79% Muppets Most Wanted $2.3M
78% Mr. Peabody & Sherman $1.9M

Coming Soon

40% The Other Woman Apr 25
—— Brick Mansions Apr 25
83% The Amazing Spider-Man 2 May 02
100% Neighbors May 09
—— Godzilla May 16

New Episodes Tonight

72% The 100: Season 1
97% The Americans: Season 2
100% Arrow: Season 2
—— Baby Daddy: Season 3
—— Hot in Cleveland: Season 5
100% Legit: Season 2
—— Melissa & Joey: Season 3
36% Mixology: Season 1
—— The Soul Man: Season 3
—— Workaholics: Season 4

Discuss Last Night's Shows

77% About a Boy: Season 1
—— Chicago Fire: Season 2
40% Glee: Season 5
36% Growing Up Fisher: Season 1
86% Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.: Season 1
80% The Mindy Project: Season 2
—— NCIS: Season 11
—— NCIS: Los Angeles: Season 5
93% New Girl: Season 3
56% The Originals: Season 1
100% Person Of Interest: Season 3
100% Supernatural: Season 9

Certified Fresh TV

77% About a Boy: Season 1
97% The Americans: Season 2
82% The Blacklist: Season 1
88% Brooklyn Nine-Nine: Season 1
85% Enlisted: Season 1
100% Fargo: Season 1
98% Game of Thrones: Season 4
100% Hannibal: Season 2
96% Silicon Valley: Season 1

Chloe (2010)

tomatometer

51

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

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

36

Average Rating: 5.1/10
Critic Reviews: 36
Fresh: 13 | Rotten: 23

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

audience

39

liked it
Average Rating: 3/5
User Ratings: 29,697

My Rating

Movie Info

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 respected 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

R,

Mystery & Suspense, Drama

Erin Cressida Wilson

Jul 13, 2010

$1.8M

Sony Pictures Classics - Official Site External Icon

Watch It Now

Cast

ADVERTISEMENT

Friend Ratings

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

All Critics (152) | Top Critics (36) | 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.

April 9, 2010 Full Review Source: Christian Science Monitor
Christian Science Monitor
Top Critic IconTop Critic

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

March 31, 2010 Full Review Source: Arizona Republic | Comments (2)
Arizona Republic
Top Critic IconTop Critic

I enjoyed because the actors don't camp it.

March 29, 2010 Full Review Source: At the Movies
At the Movies
Top Critic IconTop 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.

March 29, 2010 Full Review Source: New York Magazine | Comment (1)
New York Magazine
Top Critic IconTop 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.

March 26, 2010 Full Review Source: Slate
Slate
Top Critic IconTop 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.

March 26, 2010 Full Review Source: Globe and Mail
Globe and Mail
Top Critic IconTop Critic

Becomes more a turnoff than a turn-on.

March 13, 2014 Full Review Source: Ozus' World Movie Reviews
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.

August 2, 2012 Full Review Source: Movie Talk
Movie Talk

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

April 8, 2012 Full Review Source: TheMovieReport.com
TheMovieReport.com

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

January 31, 2011 Full Review Source: Las Vegas CityLife

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

December 3, 2010 Full Review Source: ABC Radio Brisbane
ABC Radio Brisbane

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

October 24, 2010 Full Review Source: Moviedex

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

October 15, 2010 Full Review Source: sbs.com.au
sbs.com.au

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

October 15, 2010 Full Review Source: MovieTime, ABC Radio National
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.

October 15, 2010 Full Review Source: The Age (Australia)
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.

October 15, 2010 Full Review Source: Herald Sun (Australia)
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.

October 13, 2010 Full Review Source: The Age (Australia)
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.

October 11, 2010 Full Review Source: The Vine
The Vine

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

October 11, 2010 Full Review Source: FILMINK (Australia)
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

October 9, 2010 Full Review Source: Urban Cinefile
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

October 9, 2010 Full Review Source: Urban Cinefile
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.

September 25, 2010 Full Review Source: Kinetofilm
Kinetofilm

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.

August 13, 2010 Full Review Source: CinemaBlend.com
CinemaBlend.com

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.

August 11, 2010 Full Review Source: Seanax.com
Seanax.com

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

August 11, 2010 Full Review Source: San Diego Union-Tribune
San Diego Union-Tribune

full review at Movies for the Masses

July 29, 2010 Full Review Source: Movies for the Masses
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.
November 29, 2011
maxthesax
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.
September 21, 2011
deano
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.
August 7, 2011
hunterjt13
Jim Hunter

Super Reviewer

    1. Catherine: How do you do this?
    2. 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.
    3. Catherine: Like?
    4. Chloe: You.
    5. Catherine: Me?
    6. Chloe: Yeah. Yeah people like you walk into my life.
    – Submitted by Alicia C (23 months ago)
    1. Chloe: I liked it. Last night.
    2. Catherine: Yeah, I liked it, too. I can't say that I didn't.
    – Submitted by Daniel K (2 years ago)
    1. Catherine: You're amazing. You're so beautiful.
    – Submitted by Daniel K (2 years ago)
    1. Chloe: Does this turn you on?
    – Submitted by Maria Elizabeth L (2 years ago)
    1. Chloe: Would you like to buy me a drink?
    – Submitted by Maria Elizabeth L (2 years ago)
    1. Catherine: My husband's cheating on me. At least, I think he is.
    – Submitted by Chris P (2 years ago)
View all quotes (7)

Discussion Forum

Discuss Chloe on our Movie forum!

What's Hot On RT

Movies for Tax Day
Movies for Tax Day

Your tax dollars at work, in movies.

24 Frames
24 Frames

Picture gallery of movie bears

Summer Movies
Summer Movies

10 most anticipated blockbusters

<em>Mad Men</em>
Mad Men

Read reviews for Season 7 premiere

Game of Thrones
Game of Thrones

Discuss last night's episode

Latest News on Chloe

March 28, 2010:
Five Favorite Films with Amanda Seyfried
Amanda Seyfried, who takes on a seductive role in Chloe after starring opposite Channing Tatum in...
March 25, 2010:
Critics Consensus: How to Train Your Dragon Is Certified Fresh
This week at the movies, we've got aerial adventure (How to Train Your Dragon, with voice work from...
Find us on:                 
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile