Ryan McNeil
Few things in life are worse than infatuation. It can waste unlimited amounts of time and energy, and worse, it tends to sneak up on you. Think about it – how often have you said to yourself “I think I’m becoming infatuated”. But perhaps the only thing trickier than trying to navigate such an obsession, is trying to deal with it when someone you love is fixated on someone else.
CHLOE begins by introducing us to Catherine and David (Julianne Moore and Liam Neeson). We meet them on David’s birthday, and watch as Catherine’s plan for an elaborate surprise birthday party gets unhinged when David misses his flight home. The next day, Catherine gets a surprise of her own when she sees a curious photo message on David’s phone. It leads her to believe that he might be cheating on her with some much younger women.
This revelation sends her to Chloe (Amanda Seyfried) – a high priced escort she met by co-incidence in a swanky downtown lounge. Catherine cannot take suspecting her husband of infidelity, she needs to know for sure. She hires Chloe to tempt David. She wants Chloe to use her wiles, get David to take the bait, and report back about his actions and advances.
CHLOE is an alluring, though uneven, sexually charged human drama. I don’t usually begin by mentioning the stage on which the story is set, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen Toronto look so sensual (and I’ve lived here all my life). From the sun soaked cafes where scandalous conversations are held, to the high key greenhouse where Chloe and David have their first tryst, Atom Egoyan has taken a rather buttoned-up city and presented it with quite a romantic eye. Even the sound of passing streetcars seem to stand in for weary exhales of the characters.
Toronto might look pretty, but the real star of the show is Amanda Seyfried herself. With eyes the size of dinner plates, and a sense of poise that I swear wasn’t there just three years ago, Seyfried plays Chloe in a rather extraordinary manner. Seyfried makes the character akin to drinking motor oil – something that might taste pretty good at first, but will damage a person’s insides in a hurry. I had my issues with CHLOE as a film, but I probably would have had many more with it had a less talented actor been playing Chloe the character.
Where CHLOE mis-steps is in its final act, which I won’t describe in great detail for the sake of those who haven’t seen the film. What makes that final act leave a bad taste in my mouth (motor oil perhaps?) is that just when it seems like the smoke of absurdity has cleared, and a tone of true damage is seeping in, the film shakes it all off and goes for unexpected and unnecessary schlock.
This is a bad break, since few films could pull themselves back from the brink the way that CHLOE seemingly seems ready to do. It’s especially puzzling, considering that the film is an adaptation of the french film NATHALIE, and that this wrong turn was added in for CHLOE.
In some ways, CHLOE reminds me of falling in love as a teenager. The movie begins with an overall feeling of hesitation…eventually stumbling into lust…and finally crosses a line into full-on preoccupation. As time goes on, it’s that third step that can feel embarrassing to look back on, and it’s ultimately what holds CHLOE back. It’s an unfortunate development, because just when the overall plot seems to have lost its way, it rights itself brilliantly…but only long enough to sink with style to the bottom of the lake.
Good review I think you made a few of the same points as me.
link
Amanda Seyfried is turning into a real star, she was great in the much maligned Jenifer’s Body
What about Fish Tank, are you reviewing it?
I jokingly mentioned on my obligatory weekend post, this movie seemed more like a early morning rental, cable porn movie, just from the general things I've read about it than a serious drama. But if Amanda Seyfried is as good as you say, I may give it an honest chance well down the road.
Amanda Seyfreid, I will always like because one of her favorite movies are my beloved The Science of Sleep…but I really wish she'd do an interesting movie. I've never gotten the deal with erotic thrillers, and this just seems like a glossy Fatal Attraction ripoff.
I do trust Julianne Moore's judgement, though, so I'll probably end up seeing it.
What a pity! I was really looking forward to this movie…
I'm gonna wait to rent this. There's something about seeing these kinds of steamy, explicit sex dramas in a theater with other people that makes me uncomfortable. Of course, I could get past it if it was an acclaimed film, but alas…
@ Number Six… Yeah, if anything, I think you might have even liked it a little more than I! I'm still in awe of what Seyfried was able to do in this movie – I really hope she manages to get more parts like this soon.
As for FISH TANK, look for it Wednesday or Thursday.
@ Univarn… Yeah, it's far more than just "cable porn" give it a shot if it comes to your town. If nothing else it's a pretty decent two hours during this relatively crummy time of year.
@ Simon… Ain't it cool to find out an actor has similar tastes to you. Sorta makes you think you'd have something to talk to them about if you ever met them!
This is more than just a "glossy Fatal Attraction rip off", but I can see the comparison. Julianne Moore gives a pretty good performance herself, even if I did neglect to mention her in my post.
@ Vanessa… To be clear, I did enjoy it. Go track it down.
@ Chase… You get uncomforatble watching these sort of films in a theatre with other people?? Try going alone and watching it in a theatre with other people.
I really, really want to love this film. Waiting it out 'till I finish my exams to see it.
If you want more sensual Toronto, read the novels of David Gilmour. Yes, "The Film Club" is his most popular, but it's his most tame novel by EONS. "Sparrow Nights" is a great read, as is "How Boys See Girls". I've never read novels with so much Toronto-based detail. There is a LOT of walking around the Annex and Little Italy in these books.
I'm curious on your opinion of Atom Egoyan, the Canadian Aronofsky or the Canadian Todd Haynes? (Or are they the American Egoyans?)
Provocative review, especially about Seyfried. I do like the lass, but she's always come off as sunshine and butterflies and I was wary as to how strong her Chloe would be, but you give good indications.
@ Sasha… Lordy, when those exams are over you're gonna go hog-wild. What with coming out to blogger pub night and catching up on all these films you've missed!
Thanks for the book suggestions, I'm always looking for new reads.
Lookin' forward to readin' your thoughts on CHLOE – good luck on your finals.
@ Red Couch… between the two he's likely more of a Haynes, but I'm hardly that good of an Egoyan expert. Perhaps Moxie can field that one for you.
@ Andrew… It's interesting; the character of Chloe needs to have an expression of delicacy, but have the confidence of a prize fighter.
Seyfried pulls it off beautifully, makes you believe that as damaged as she seems to be, that she never for a moment stops being a cold, calculating minx.
Finally, a moment to write something again after piles of school work and it just so happened to be about this film. I can't agree with you about the third act but instead of trying to re-explain myself here, I'm better off just linking to my own review:
http://mikesyoutalkingtome.blogspot.com/2010/03/chloe-45-out-of-5.html
I consider myself an Egoyan fanat- Uh, I mean, SCHOLAR. 😉 I absolutely love to study his films; they give me something new every time I watch them. The fact that three of his films make it easily into my top 50 films of all time says a lot.
I enjoyed this movie thoroughly. It's virtually impossible for me to explain why without giving away bits and pieces that I think are better seen firsthand by your readers, so I'll have to remain vague! And while I agree with your note about the stumble in the last ten minutes or so, I still came away feeling…haunted. Unsettled. Precisely the way we were meant to feel coming out of the theatre, I think. (It didn't help that I saw it WITH MY DAD. Oh, god. Anyone who's seen it already will know why THAT WAS NOT A GOOD CALL ON MY PART.)
Anyway, I'll be a champion for this film. Loved it. No shot or facial expression was anything less than exquisitely deliberate. Everything about it had a tinge of… something… to it. Something that wouldn't let us take it at face value, or one just one level. I can't wait to see it again. (Worth checking out Joel's review and my shameless gushing in response here: http://www.joelcrary.com/?p=5261 )
@ Mike… Quite liked your review. In case you didn't notice I even made it part of my weekly links on Friday in my Everybody's talkin' post!
@ EhCh… Yeah, I noticed that you'd just paid to see it for a *third* time!! To be clear – I liked it…I just thought that final turn of the screw was a little bit much.
regardless, there's lots to like about this movie – hence my positive review, even if I just *barely* gave it a positive score.
Maybe I need to watch it again.