CHLOE - 8/10 (B+)

A sexy, intriguing, and well-crafted adult drama. Julianne Moore and Amanda Seyfried were great. It's nothing new, but it's an entertaining watch. Very nice cinematography!

I'll buy this one when it hits Blu-ray.

It's yet another variation on the Fatal Attraction formula, but a sexy, tense, and very well-acted variation. Julianne Moore delivers a courageous, sublime performance as a doctor who fears her husband (Liam Neeson), a charismatic, but distant professor, is unfaithful and hires a mysterious prostitute (Amanda Seyfried) to present herself to him and test his fidelity.

Moore's talent is now legendary. Over her 20-year-plus career, in film after film (The Big Lebowski, Children of Men, Far from Heaven, The Hours, Magnolia, etc.), she has proven her ability and versatility. In Chloe, she delivers one of her best performances. She, with no hesitation, transforms into an insecure woman whose emotional estrangement and subsequent jealousy leads her deep into a dangerous, perverse situation. It's a soul-(and body)-bearing performance; Moore expertly portrays her character's emotional and sexual confusion, misery, and rebirth.

Seyfried is also superb. The Mamma Mia! and Mean Girls starlet explores new, erotic territory with positive results. As the title character, she has to be mysterious and, at times, frightening, yet also innocent. And always very, very attractive. Seyfried delivers and is engaging and memorable. Neeson is solid, but the screenplay requires his role be more cipher (what people presume he is doing, what people say he is doing) than flesh-and-blood detailed character.

As directed by Atom Egoyan, the celebrated (The Sweet Hereafter), but inconsistent (the flawed Ararat) director, Chloe is a beautiful film. Toronto is shot perfectly, overflowing with atmospheric shadows and interesting locales. The film also avoids many suspense clichés: there are no over-the-top chase sequences, rather the suspense plays out in the mind and bedroom. So, yes, it may be yet another variation on a formula (oh! what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to screw other people), but it is still very easy to recommend and has many interesting qualities.

A-

It gets pretty silly at times (Seyfried's titular character is mostly to blame, though through no fault of the actress herself) but it balances it out with enough raw sexiness to make John Waters blush. Moore is indeed superb, as is Seyfried (her character's flaws notwithstanding), but the film feels almost too slight at times. Neeson, in particular, is wasted - though I'm not sure how much of that was due to the script being written around his tragedy. And the ending wraps things up too neat and tidy for such a complex story. It's like Egoyan didn't know how to end it, and so went with what was easiest.

Still, I enjoyed it, if only for the lesbian sex.

misogynist.

It's a silly B-movie with top notch acting from Moore (who delivers one of her best performances here) and Seyfried. It was very fun and entertaining. Nothing more, nothing less.

7/10 ( B )

Chloe is a decent thriller thanks mostly to Amanda Seyfried. Julianne Moore's role as Catherine is convincing enough as she tries to figure out if her husband David (Liam Neeson) is cheating on her. Bring in Chloe (Seyfried) who wants to help Catherine figure this out as she will try and see if David will flirt with her. Chloe begins to tell Catherine that David is flirty, at least that is what Catherine is thinking. Once the somewhat odd twist comes about, the film begins to falter story wise but Seyfried is the one who keeps the film watchable as it goes on. She shows here that even if the script isn't amazing, she has the chops to still pull off a good performance. Michael's (Max Thieriot) story is unnecessary and kind of ruins the film a bit and Neeson is underused. While the entire screenplay doesn't satisfy or answer everything it sets out to do it still offers decent amount of thrills. However if the story was richer, there would of been more thrills so the end result is basically decent. **

It was uninspired and boring. Solid performances by all three leads but nothing to make the film worthwhile.
The twist could be seen from a mile away and really, the screenplay sucks all around. It's a confused film.

D-