Chloe (C or 2/4 stars)
While filming 'Chloe', directed by Atom Egoyan, Liam Neeson's beautiful wife, Natasha Richardson, died from complications of a skiing fall. We all remember this. And it must have been horrifically difficult to continue the project. That said, Neeson's in again, out again characterization seems to have been affected by his personal trauma, & it hurts what's already an oddly-toned movie. Neeson plays David, a popular college professor. He's married to Catherine (Julianne Moore), a popular, Toronto-based gynecologist. David likes to flirt with attractive women of all ages (even some of his students); & this has made Catherine insecure. Sure, their marriage was great in its infancy. But they're far from the perfect couple, & even struggle to get through to their talented teenaged son (Max Thieriot). For Catherine, her last straw is when David inexplicably (& conveniently) misses a flight home (he'd been teaching a seminar) for his surprise birthday party.
Convinced by some shaky evidence of David's infidelity, Catherine decides that proof is needed before confrontation. For this, she hires a local call-girl whom she met in a restaurant bathroom named Chloe (Amanda Seyfried, of Mamma Mia!, Letters to Juliet). To test his loyalty, Catherine wants Chloe to seduce David, but not have sex with him, & then report back with detailed descriptions of their trysts. On the 1st occasion, Chloe says that he resists her. But after continual meetings, she tells Catherine that they get hot & heavy. And as the affair intensifies, Catherine finds herself both turned-off AND turned-on by Chloe's reports. Living vicariously through Chloe's sexual descriptions, Catherine finds herself temporarily attracted to Chloe, herself; & falls into this strange, seductive spell. Who's telling the truth, here? Will David admit his infidelit(ies)? Will Catherine? What of their son? How will it all end? Ugh, I'll tell you - stupidly.
'Chloe' aims to be a suspenseful story of love & betrayal. But here's how I saw it: as an 'initially' suspenseful story of love & betrayal that ends up, not being a character study ... but a study in quality acting. I suppose I must fault Atom Egoyan who wrote & directed this movie; a movie that had great potential, really. He is an extremely well-respected director who I have not always clicked with. For this film, I like stories of marriage & fidelity. They're usually ripe with tension & voyeurism. THIS film starts well, kept me engaged, has that voyeuristic quality, but then it descends into outright silliness, as most films have been doing lately. I mean, any semblance of cohesion gives way to a main character having a thing for every member of the lead family! If you like crazy, trashy endings, then I suppose you'll dig this.
I suppose the biggest singular misfire of the film (other than Neeson's unfortunate 'there he is, there he isn't' committal) IS the character of Chloe, herself. I like Amanda Seyfried. I think she's talented; has not disappointed me, etc. But while she gives a good performance, I don't think she was right for the part. She is too cute, & not alluring enough. And the sound of her voice - sweet as sugar - also does not fit well (particularly in narrations). Her 'abilities' are put to the test, & Seyfried mildly succeeds. But the arc of her character is so horrifically written that it becomes hard to differentiate character from performance. Chloe, as a character, is an enigma. She doesn't know what she wants, and so, we don't, & are flummoxed by her final decisions. Because I thought she was on course to do something completely different, I couldn't BELIEVE her arc was so linear and inconsequential in the grand scheme of things -- very aggravating.
Because Neeson is more of a plot device than a character, the screenplay focuses on Seyfried & Julianne Moore (and the development of Chloe/Catherine). Julianne Moore is excellent, here. I felt her emotions. She reacted, perhaps, as other women might; given the awkward situation. She made it believable. And there is a highly erotic sex scene btwn. she & Seyfried towards the end that can only be called ... brave. I guess I just thought something else/more was going to come out of 'Chloe' by the end. The ending needed to be better conceived &, perhaps, ambiguous {very Fatal Attraction-y}. Funny enough, I watched 2 deleted scenes from the DVD. And both scenes (adding up to 3-4 minutes) should really have been in the finished product. It's confounding to me why they weren't'; as they would have added to the perpetually disintegrating storyline. Furthermore, the film is drabby to look at. 'Chloe' is - plain & simple - a bit of a misfire.
Convinced by some shaky evidence of David's infidelity, Catherine decides that proof is needed before confrontation. For this, she hires a local call-girl whom she met in a restaurant bathroom named Chloe (Amanda Seyfried, of Mamma Mia!, Letters to Juliet). To test his loyalty, Catherine wants Chloe to seduce David, but not have sex with him, & then report back with detailed descriptions of their trysts. On the 1st occasion, Chloe says that he resists her. But after continual meetings, she tells Catherine that they get hot & heavy. And as the affair intensifies, Catherine finds herself both turned-off AND turned-on by Chloe's reports. Living vicariously through Chloe's sexual descriptions, Catherine finds herself temporarily attracted to Chloe, herself; & falls into this strange, seductive spell. Who's telling the truth, here? Will David admit his infidelit(ies)? Will Catherine? What of their son? How will it all end? Ugh, I'll tell you - stupidly.
'Chloe' aims to be a suspenseful story of love & betrayal. But here's how I saw it: as an 'initially' suspenseful story of love & betrayal that ends up, not being a character study ... but a study in quality acting. I suppose I must fault Atom Egoyan who wrote & directed this movie; a movie that had great potential, really. He is an extremely well-respected director who I have not always clicked with. For this film, I like stories of marriage & fidelity. They're usually ripe with tension & voyeurism. THIS film starts well, kept me engaged, has that voyeuristic quality, but then it descends into outright silliness, as most films have been doing lately. I mean, any semblance of cohesion gives way to a main character having a thing for every member of the lead family! If you like crazy, trashy endings, then I suppose you'll dig this.
I suppose the biggest singular misfire of the film (other than Neeson's unfortunate 'there he is, there he isn't' committal) IS the character of Chloe, herself. I like Amanda Seyfried. I think she's talented; has not disappointed me, etc. But while she gives a good performance, I don't think she was right for the part. She is too cute, & not alluring enough. And the sound of her voice - sweet as sugar - also does not fit well (particularly in narrations). Her 'abilities' are put to the test, & Seyfried mildly succeeds. But the arc of her character is so horrifically written that it becomes hard to differentiate character from performance. Chloe, as a character, is an enigma. She doesn't know what she wants, and so, we don't, & are flummoxed by her final decisions. Because I thought she was on course to do something completely different, I couldn't BELIEVE her arc was so linear and inconsequential in the grand scheme of things -- very aggravating.
Because Neeson is more of a plot device than a character, the screenplay focuses on Seyfried & Julianne Moore (and the development of Chloe/Catherine). Julianne Moore is excellent, here. I felt her emotions. She reacted, perhaps, as other women might; given the awkward situation. She made it believable. And there is a highly erotic sex scene btwn. she & Seyfried towards the end that can only be called ... brave. I guess I just thought something else/more was going to come out of 'Chloe' by the end. The ending needed to be better conceived &, perhaps, ambiguous {very Fatal Attraction-y}. Funny enough, I watched 2 deleted scenes from the DVD. And both scenes (adding up to 3-4 minutes) should really have been in the finished product. It's confounding to me why they weren't'; as they would have added to the perpetually disintegrating storyline. Furthermore, the film is drabby to look at. 'Chloe' is - plain & simple - a bit of a misfire.