Posted on 4/01/10 11:21 AM
4 stars out of 4
Chloe was a horrible movie . . . April Fools! It definitely was not bad.
Opinions will definitely vary for the erotic thriller Chloe, directed by Atom Egoyan, which isn't really a thriller but more of an erotic character study, but I think that this movie is clever, slick, sharp, and really great. Not only well-acted, but psychologically intriguing, Chloe is a surprising movie. I went into it knowing barely anything about it, and found a very smart movie which showcases Amanda Seyfried and Julianne Moore in two of their most complex performances of their careers.
Chloe is an escort. Young, smart and beautiful. She's good at what she does. She knows how to please her clients. She is very wise and intelligent, and knows how to manipulate people's thoughts. She doesn't always love doing what she does, but to get by she tries to find something in her suitors that she loves. There's always something.
Catherine is a gynecologist. She, like Chloe, is also good at what she does. She is a very wealthy woman. She has a big and beautiful house. She has a 17-year-old son, Michael, and a husband, Daniel, who is a professor of music at college.
How are they linked? Remember this: Catherine sees Chloe outside her office window. She is intrigued at her manner.
Catherine has a bit of a problem. Her husband "missed" his flight home, therefore missing his surprise birthday party. She thinks her husband is cheating on her, and she has good reason to think so. He gets text messages from his female college students and laughs out loud at their instant messages. Not only that, but he flirts with basically anything with a pulse.
One night Catherine sees Chloe at a bar. They make eye contact, and Chloe says that she doesn't usually meet with single women. Couples, yes, but not single women. Catherine asks Chloe to present herself to her husband at his favorite restaurant. Soon after that, Chloe reports back to Catherine of the events that happened after she meets Catherine's husband, graphically. This begins a chain of events between Chloe and Catherine, which forms a dangerous relationship that may put Catherine's family in danger. This, however, doesn't even begin to describe the movie. You need to experience it for yourself.
The movie makes you wonder why Catherine continues to ask Chloe to detail her encounters with her husband. Does she want to have a reason to leave her husband? Does it arouse her? And why is Chloe so damn close to Catherine? Is their emotional connection also sexual? The movie also makes you wonder if Chloe is psychologically unstable, despite not speaking of her past life.
Amanda Seyfried and Julianne Moore make the movie work so well with their in-depth performances. I describe them as...perfect. Liam Neeson wasn't on-screen as much, but he was also good. Michael Thieriot as Catherine's son, although his character wasn't as detailed, did a good job as well.
Personally, the ending for Chloe was a high point for me, but it's been panned by critics. I don't see why. Is it conventional? Yes, but it kinda has to be. A movie like Chloe doesn't need to have a completely solid ending. All that matters is what came before it. The ending isn't even that bad, though. How else is the movie supposed to end? Do critics want a sequel or something? But to each his own.
To wrap things up, Chloe is a brilliant film, to put it bluntly. It's an erotic, unsettling and psychological ride.