Watching "Chloe," I felt a little disappointed and misled. While the acting and directing pedigree of the film seems to indicate an intelligent and sophisticated film, the script is really little more than yet another variation on "Fatal Attraction." I've seen parts of "Natalie", the French film "Chloe" is based on, and from what I saw the film looked like a mature exploration of the disconnection of a middle-aged couple. But "Chloe" seems to reinforce so many of the tired stereotypes about sex and romance that come from American films ... most notably, the ridiculous idea that a couple who has been together for decades are still supposed to be behaving like they are in the initial infatuation stage of the relationship, and if they're not, that they've somehow "lost" something.
Julianne Moore, one of modern cinema's best actresses, gives the same outstanding performance she gives in pretty much everything she's in. She plays Catherine, a gynecologist whose marriage to a professor has lost its spark over the years. (Well, duh. Juggling two successful careers and raising an almost grown son will do that to a couple.) When Catherine finds reason to suspect that her husband might have had a dalliance with a student, she makes the bizarre decision to hire a doe-eyed escort, Chloe (Amanda Seyfried, who has never looked so delicious) to try and seduce her husband and report back to her.
What follows is an even more bizarre and outlandish series of events which proceed to reveal that Chloe, a young woman who clearly has "mother issues," is in fact sexually obsessed with Catherine and not, as Catherine fears, attracted to either her husband or barely legal son. Since the film never really gives the audience enough reason to believe in Chloe's feelings or actions, by the end of the film the whole thing really just becomes kind of silly.
Chloe might be worth a watch for its good performances, sumptuous art direction, and sexual titillation. But it doesn't offer much intelligent insight into the subjects of relationships, sexuality, or prostitution.
Julianne Moore, one of modern cinema's best actresses, gives the same outstanding performance she gives in pretty much everything she's in. She plays Catherine, a gynecologist whose marriage to a professor has lost its spark over the years. (Well, duh. Juggling two successful careers and raising an almost grown son will do that to a couple.) When Catherine finds reason to suspect that her husband might have had a dalliance with a student, she makes the bizarre decision to hire a doe-eyed escort, Chloe (Amanda Seyfried, who has never looked so delicious) to try and seduce her husband and report back to her.
What follows is an even more bizarre and outlandish series of events which proceed to reveal that Chloe, a young woman who clearly has "mother issues," is in fact sexually obsessed with Catherine and not, as Catherine fears, attracted to either her husband or barely legal son. Since the film never really gives the audience enough reason to believe in Chloe's feelings or actions, by the end of the film the whole thing really just becomes kind of silly.
Chloe might be worth a watch for its good performances, sumptuous art direction, and sexual titillation. But it doesn't offer much intelligent insight into the subjects of relationships, sexuality, or prostitution.