Chloe (2009) - Drama, Mystery, Romance

Hohum Score



Suspecting her husband of infidelity, gynecologist Dr. Catherine Stewart hires an escort named Chloe in order to test his faithfulness. Soon, the relationships between all three intensify.

IMDB: 6.3
Director: Atom Egoyan
Stars: Julianne Moore, Amanda Seyfried
Length: 96 Minutes
PG Rating: R
Reviews: 38 out of 178 found boring (21.34%)

One-line Reviews (183)

DVD has an entertaining commentary track by the director, Screenwriter:Erin Cressida Wilson (Secretary) and actress:Seyfried.

OMG Julianne Moore & Amanda Seyfeild are stunning in this .

In "Chloe" the outdoor scenes (the action takes place in winter) are certainly bleak and sombre, but the interior ones, especially those set in Catherine and David's ultra-modern home are often surprisingly warm in tone, showing that brown can sometimes be a warm colour as well as a dull one.

Second, the cast seemed strong and the premise quite intriguing - a married woman, believing her husband is cheating on her, hires a call girl to seduce and trap him.

Soon enters "Chloe", a rather puzzling, mysterious, and fascinating young woman who seems to be available to those who can afford her charms.

it's just tedious.

Unfortunately, not only there is nothing new, but also it is boring and predictable.

Unfortunately,it starts off as an intriguing psychological drama with an intriguing premise but then veers off into B-movie territory.

They are also very entertaining.

Solid erotic thriller even if predictable .

What I can say about Chloe is that it is grindingly slow and sparsely populated with undefined and uninteresting characters whose behavior seems more like it's determined by the random throw of an eight-sided die than by any recognizable human impulse or desire.

Amanda Seyfried makes this movie so amazing, and Julianne Moore specially gives an outstanding performance, really emotionally compelling.

However, the film is interesting, specially thanks to the intense work from the three main actors: the great Julianne Moore expresses the deepest emotions from her character with minimum effort and maximum impact; Liam Neeson also brings a credible and very detailed work; and Amanda Seyfried displays the big histrionic talent she could not show in crappy romantic films like Letters to Juliet and Dear John.

Even though it was super suspenseful (for fear Catherine would be murdered), it played as one hundred percent erotic, filled with all the emotions of the relationship between the two women.

The film is short, and the dialog very simple, as lines are quickly delivered, but much is left unsaid, left to the two actresses to fill in the gaps, as we see desire, confusion, frustration, fear, anger, and guilt all come to the surface.

Unfortunately overall, I wouldn't clamber to watch it again but I did find it enjoyable and stimulating for the duration.

One thing for sure is that the film is highly entertaining, for me it is a little bit surprised to see Egoyan has shucked off his auteurism wind coat to take on a mission for a more Hollywood erotic thriller/drama.

Saucy well written yarn that is surprisingly engaging and more coherent than the likes of Bitter Moon (1992).

Intense, absurd and very funny .

Really "Chloe" is one entertaining film it's hot with lustful passionate scenes and it's drama and emotional twist proves love and erotic behavior when mixed as fun and playful can lead to a dangerous game of obsession and pain.

(2003) made by Anne Fontaine with Fanny Ardant, Emmanuelle Béart, and Gérard Depardieu, as three participants of erotic thrilling psychological drama.

It is clear that from the beginning of meetings between two women, that there was an intense sexual attraction.

Since none of the main characters are likable or believable, it requires considerable effort to muster more than the shrug of a shoulder when the film culminates in predictable overblown melodrama.

Egoyan eschews a Fatal Attraction third act turn for something a little more dangerous and exciting.

Ms Wilson is clearly a LA girl who escaped a life regurgitating cliché amongst American academia to actually become a screen writer, just so long as she played the tiresome Hollywood game.

Third, after sex Chloe and the son simply fall asleep in Catherine's bed, both evidently unaware that they would be discovered.

Not a bad movie; kinda cheesy a little creepy, great performances and fairly entertaining.

This is the type of "arty" movie where you put up with a lot of long, boring, mannered storytelling because you think it will lead to something emotionally powerful.

Predictable and unnecessarily exotic .

The screenplay from Chloe is not very original, and the "surprise" revelation from the final minutes is predictable.

an intense drama about sexual identification and fantasy .

Chloe is full of empty dialogues that have no relation to the story whatsoever (sneezing, zinc, son's problems etc. ????!!!

Three semi-strangers living under the same roof and nearly frigid to one another, estranged in all possible ways and only carrying on a life of boredom and dumb perversity.

The worst movie I have seen in a long while...

"Chloe" is a film that is well-crafted in many ways, yet still manages to be ridiculous and predictable in the end.

It was predictable.

Whilst it was predictable and formulaic I certainly can't say I was ever bored.

She puts the thrill in this otherwise bland script.

Definitely an enjoyable movie for everyone till the last scene.

Unfortunately "Chlore's" formulaic plot and generic characters don't give Egoyan much room to play with.

They've taken the dull and mildly offensive French film "Nathalie" and turned it into something even more conservative and misogynistic.

Chloe is a solid erotic/romantic thriller, that keeps the viewer interested and invested throughout, even if it's pretty predictable - the big twist at the very end can be figured out around the middle of the film.

so slow, I was tempted to fast forward a few times to see if the 'thriller' part would ever begin.

On the whole, intense acting does a great job to give the picture more consistency and depth than it would probably have had if less talented acting had been delivered

Good work from the cast, unobtrusive direction, and the setting in Toronto, rather than the tiresome Los Angeles or New York.

And the ending was dull.

So a total waste of talent and time.

What makes this movie so much worse is the pretentious direction by Atom Egoyan, who moves things along at a slow and ponderous pace, giving you plenty of time to notice the lack of substance and story.

The story line is pretty predictable with a little surprise twist.

The story is too predictable.

Intriguing questions.

Julianne Moore looked absolutely stunning as Catherine Stewart.

Overall, made-for-TV feel after an intriguing build-up.

', and it is the getting there that makes this film so fascinating.

The plot works very well, it's very engaging.

Personally, that's exactly why I couldn't feel sorry for Cathrine's character, because she had a paranoid rush and dragged everyone into all of this and it wasn't she who got hurt in the end...

Don't waste your time on this trash.

While Chloe is a well made film, but it is ultimately dull.

Extremely engaging and incredibly entertaining, this story is ultimately about human nature and instincts.

What follows is one of the worst movies of the century - thanks to Atom Egoyan and Ivan Reitman - as Chloe, Catherine, David, Michael take on an intellectual Torontonian approach to erotica.

Entertaining fidelity character drama .

just a pretentious attempt to be smart and intellectual.

The musical score is a boring drone with an occasional series of annoying banging on what sounds like a garbage can, where this movie ultimately belongs.

Meanwhile, Catherine is dealing with her son, Michael (Max Thieriot) whose role in the movie is essentially pointless.

The director is trying to unfold a story which is already unfolded in my mind before the first half is even over because it is predictable and lame.


However, I think that the direction of the movie is very predictable.

It's a very mature, intricate experience that takes its time with developing each character, and brings a stunning conclusion that sets it apart from other stories of its kind.

I sniggered at the scriptwriter's attempts at shockingly explicit dialogue, and I snoozed through 90% of the running time where absolutely nothing happens.

As Chloe describes their adventures in great detail, Catherine becomes more and more jealous, but things are about to take a very unexpected turn, one which surprises her as well, tending to put their family into jeopardy.

Liam Neissen is well dressed in his role, and quite good, very emotionally compelling.

In this case, all that Egoyan's dull posturing leads to is a melodramatic clusterbleep that could pass for the ending to any one of about a hundred woman-in-peril flicks on cable TV.

"Chloe" is a disaster, a misguided and pretentious film that believes it's making a grand statement about sex and human nature until resorting to terrible, manipulative writing in the last act in order to force a pointless finale.

If this pretentious waste of time and energy is what it takes to get legitimate actresses to remove their clothes, I can honestly say we'd all be better off if Egoyan had use Rohypnol instead.

So the biggest plot twist has little affect to me, though he changed the ending to make the story subjected to a more wider audience, but shamefully became a faulty stroke as the intention is feasible as Egoyan simply failed to do so by rushing hastily to finish the film in merely 96 minutes, the intense climax should have been handled with more care instead of a banal fall-from-the-window kitsch.

The plot for this film is so interesting and intriguing, my curiosity was very peaked by just reading the plot summary, and let me tell you, my attention was kept the entire runtime, and I was not let down how the filmmakers executed this interesting plot.

It lights up with eroticism, it's engrossing, it's downright fun.

In "Nathalie" the usually regal "Fanny Ardant" is transformed from a tedious hausfrau into her husband's ideal partner by virtue of a little extra marital sex.

It was so enjoyable to see Toronto finally shot AS TORONTO.

I also liked the storyline because it was interesting, at some points it was surprisingly exciting and it wasn't as predictable as other movies of its genre.

Brilliant cast; gripping storyline; a very good film in my opinion and highly worth a watch.

Getting to the end was tiresome.

and thank god it was only 90 minutes long, because if it were any longer, i might of walked out Bottom Line, yes i get that it was trying to be seductive by adding twist and turns to its story.

Amanda was spectacular as always and was just right at playing the seductive other woman with her stunning looks.

It's such a cliché-narrative, it has been done so many times in similar ways that you would have to make quite an effort for it to be believable.

If you ever wonder about the corruption of today's Hollywood, consider this: Stars used to give freely of their own time toward such things as selling War Bonds, giving blood, entertaining the troops.

It's hard to truly understand what leads the main characters to their self destructive affairs, and it's especially fascinating to see how "Chloe" opens up to Catherine in the opening scenes, and how she defies comprehension by the nature of her moves.

It has a predictable climax, before descending into a ridiculous finale.

Directed by Atom Egoyan (Exotica, The Sweet Hereafter, Where the Truth Lies) made an entertaining drama with the right moments of eroticism.

Nonetheless I have to say that in this particular case, the production is carried out with a lot of expertise and until the very end it stays thrilling.

A little dull at times but reasonably entertaining.

Liam and Julianne are a pair of forty somethings, successful professionals both who've gotten bored with the marriage.

even the most contrived of that genre would be more satisfying than what was offered in this movie...

When she finally shacks up with Chloe herself it's as unsatisfying as it is confusing: she showed no signs of attraction to the girl whatsoever.

Intriguing disappointment .

I confess that I usually find the erotic thrillers to be tedious and pretty laughable.

What should married couples do when they lose passion for each other, the marriage becomes boring and they are tempted by outside temptations?

Good cast and intense interpretation make up for a predictable and sometimes overstretched movie.

An Atom Egoyan Classic: erotic and suspenseful, intensely emotional .

What results is a fascinating exploration of the emotions and insecurities of Moore and Seyfried concerning issues of trust and urges.

And it dealt with communal/family dynamics, along with loss & tragedy - so, in a way, it had an easier path to intense engagement.

Seductive but predictable, the cast makes a difference .

In Nathalie, he left his parents' house and from what I could judge, he had quite normal relationship with them which allowed the plot to concentrate primarily on the unusual and quite fascinating relationship between Catherine and the call girl Nathalie whom she hired to find out if her husband cheats on her and what he actually expects from a woman.

This begins a new direction in the relationships, one that takes all of them to unexpected places.

The only downsides I can see are the fact that it was a bit predictable in the beginning, a bit boring at times and some characters were somehow annoying, not fully understanding their role in the plot.


The film simply added a lesbian twist on a very formulaic Fatal Attraction type story.

If you must watch it make sure you give yourself plenty of time to contemplate all of those life questions that other people have written about in their reviews - watch after midnight on a work night, that way you may fall asleep and miss some of it.

The son's character is surprisingly boring & unattractive.

Amanda Seyfried's performance as the prostitute Chloe is spellbinding and absorbing.

To director Atom Egoyan's credit he directs Chloe away from the action thriller cliché and rather focuses as he did with THE SWEET HEREAFTER (1997) on the psychology and personality of the characters themselves, though disappointingly with almost the same impact in both movies.

Exotica, for example, might be set in a strip club, but it's the equivalent of having a lap dancer subject you to intense psychoanalysis for nearly two hours.

For people who enjoy a dramatic thriller that is heavy on the sexual aspect, then "Chloe" might be an overly enjoyable movie.

from here the story becomes more complicated and exciting as Chloe starting to get her job done.

While the first portion is enigmatic, mysterious, intense and mesmerizing, things go haywire when Egoyan chooses to suddenly turn 'Chloe' into a typical thriller with a typical Hollywood ending.

Chloe isn't the worst thing ever made and, I suppose, if you're some kind of stupid and degenerate upper-middle class urbanite, perhaps you could find something here that echoes your own empty existence.

Too many close-ups for one and the movements are so slow, including the final lethal accident, that they seem suspended in mid-air.

The movie is very open to interpretation and kind of intriguing( I hardly think that many people didn't stop a minute or two to think about the ending).

"Chloe" is a half-baked erotic thriller from Atom Egoyan that is neither very thrilling nor especially erotic.

Really, even though the plot is predictable, it is overcome by the amazing performances right up until the last 15 to 20 minutes.

I really enjoyed it, those who didn't can suck my tit.

I found much of the first two-thirds set up very nicely, but the last third of the movie resorts to some cliché' developments and the movie loses some of its credibility.

One of Hollywood's dullest .

Amanda Seyfried - had her part gone to someone who doesn't look like a fish (to me, Seyfried does, although I'm clearly in the minority on this), Chloe's (the character's) actions, along with her accounts of erotic/sexual encounters, might have been more exciting/evocative.

But chalk it up as an entertaining night in with a bottle of wine rather than anything brighter.

Subtle and Entertaining Sexual thriller.

I have yet to see 'nathalie' and I am undecided whether the plot is 'predictable' even after watching it on DVD five times.

The direction lulls you in to a wild ride as more of the plot is revealed.

It was inferred through Chloe's symbolic comb gift giving that she was playing out her "mommy issues" with Catherine, which is just another cliché.

The film becomes just plain dull, and the film uses overly dramatic music when it is not called for.

This movie is tense, penetrating and worth watching.

Still, it was a great watch, very entertaining and extremely well acted.

Especially if the lie is so obvious that the viewer (at least I was) is totally bored waiting for the truth to be revealed to Julianne Moore.

This film titled "Chloe" happens to be highly enjoyable as it's an erotic tale that blends drama and emotions well together.

Very formulaic...

They both end-up coning each other while object of the initial target, the boring husband, doesn't even figure in the story.

A fascinating hybrid between psychological drama and erotic thriller (there's a vague hint of Fatal Attraction throughout the movie), Chloe is a rarity due to its attempt to analyze sex and its consequences without necessarily resorting to openly titillating imagery (a characteristic Egoyan shares with another Canadian maestro, David Cronenberg).

All in all, a big waste of time and money.

It's suspenseful, chilling, and erotic.

Predictable and does not deliver its promise .

A great cast with solid performances but quite predictable .

amazingly pointless...

Stories like unfaithful husband/wife drama really bores the hell out of me.

The creator of such gems as "The Sweet Hereafter" and "The Adjuster" his direction on this film is flat and uninteresting.

Although the intruder Chloe in the film is an extreme complexion, the thrilling experience has given me some goose bumps.

"CHLOE" works despite the obvious flaws and comes out an engaging potboiler.......

It's intriguing for the most part and includes a well-executed twist.

It is contrived, derivative, silly.

It's more of an effective little character drama about values, trust and consequences to name a few rather than a straight thriller but is interesting and entertaining just the same.

It's an unexpected turnover which the plot takes, taking everyone by surprise and contributing to the suspenseful atmosphere.

Overall, I found this film to be yet another popcorn drama about dysfunctional marriages with a slow plot, little character development and a cop-out ending.

Amanda seyfried this time play something good(psycho) apart from its boring romance drama.

It is very predictable and creates such a mess on purpose.

The problem with this movie is that it is yet another piece of feminist propaganda, freshly minted from the hands of our ultra-liberal friends in Hollywood.

Chloe (Amanda Seyfried) was an empty vesicle used by Catherine(Julianna Moore) to play out her mid-life crisis.

Overall though, despite this harsh criticism of the writing, it is an entertaining film.

Chloe ends - after an unforeseen and somewhat contrived shock - on a rather bathetic note and does so all too suddenly.

Furthermore, there is no coldness to be found in the carefully crafted performances: Neeson and Moore play the troubled couple with conviction, especially when things start getting more complicated (Moore's suspicious wife is a tour de force turn that should have received some award recognition), but the heart of the film lies, quite predictably, in Seyfried's hands, and she rises to the challenge by proving that she can do Big Love-style quality work on the big screen, embodying a complex, intriguing character light years away from her roles in Mamma Mia!

It's the characters that make this intriguing....

In this context, Seyfried's character is very covert, causing a BIG mess to each member of the family, and maybe that's why this movie feels so intense.

And these moments of absolute concentration on one face with one expression that is stretched out to unbearable proportions are definitely too long.

Among other things like it having no plot no point & no purpose.

a cold attempt at something sexy and intriguing .

Nevertheless, Egoyan has brought to the screen a rather fascinating character study involving four characters in an erotic display encompassing each of these characters or perhaps only three of them depending on the interpretation of the movie.

Thrilling erotic adventure with some of the best acting we've seen out of Amanda Seyfreid to date!

The acting is functional and the experience was dull i would not recommend this at all unless you like your soft porn and the genre.

What really makes Chloe as engaging as it is are the three central characters, Liam Neeson, Amanda Seyfried, and Julianne Moore.

I'm probably being far too generous with my rating due to loving the lezzing up and Amanda Seyfried's rather excellent rack but it's worth watching just for the scene where the Chloe character has an orgasm over a rack of shoes; had me pissing myself.

fairly enjoyable trash; just don't expect anything more and you should not find yourself disappointed.

Something clunky and seemingly predictable about the whole proceeding and then a prostitute is hired to see if husband would seduce her.

Director Atom Egoyan provided fast pacing to this intense drama.

There are enough twists to qualify this film as an above average thriller, but it's the performances that make it worth watching.

Better watch the French original version "Nathalie" which is much more enjoyable.

Amanda Seyfried's performance as Chloe alone is one excellent reason why this movie is worth watching.

Right off the bat; the overall cadence is painfully slow with scenes taking too long to complete.

The ending reveals all of these details to us and feels extremely contrived.

Anyway, after all that unfolds at a snail's pace with enough atmospheric mood music to choke the Syrens of ancient lore, the film spins about on a twist so annoying and aggravating you'll wish you could stick your foot through your television screen and right up the ass of director Egoyan, with a couple toes left over to poke writer Erin Cressida Wilson in the eyes.

And when that happened, the rest of it got really boring.

I think Julianne Moore is one of the finer actors out there and Amanda Seyfried had come along long way from 'Mamma Mia' and looks stunning throughout.

I found them and the universe in which they operated artificial and contrived.

Even so, this doesn't excuse almost the entire production consisting of Moore and Seyfried just jawing together, which makes for exceptionally boring viewing.

Chloe is the creme de la creme of dull pomp and circumstance cinematic drudgery.

The fact that the script was from a French story filmed in Toronto, Canada made for fascinating settings; they were away from the now boring settings in New York and Southern California.