I have no shame admitting that I watched this to see Amanda Seyfried naked. After watching this I realized thats exactly the reason not to watch it. Among other things like it having no plot no point & no purpose. None of the naughty scenes are sexy,seductive or erotic. I actually laughed at how stupefying the whole mess is. Not even MST3K could find a bone of contention here. Watching Chloe fail frame by frame is painful. Amanda gave up Big Love for this Dear John & Letters to Juliet?!?!? I do not care for Atom Egoyan as a director either. His movies are sniveling & rote aimed at a higher class of snobs. Chloe is the creme de la creme of dull pomp and circumstance cinematic drudgery. Oh & hey Liam After.Life & Chloe both in the same year wow did they even have to pay you man?!?!?My new name for Liam Neeson is Ol dirty Bastard.Chloe actually reminded me of another laugh a minute stinker called Obsessed.The only difference is Obsessed doesn't take itself too serious so while its a bad movie at least its not pretending not to be.

Chloe is an erotic thriller that's essentially a tamer lesbian version of Fatal Attraction. Comparing it to Fatal Attraction it comes off badly as never really gets that gritty and tense, but, in its own right, it's a good movie with plenty to offer... like Amanda Seyfried's chest. Whilst it was predictable and formulaic I certainly can't say I was ever bored. 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 * over a rack of shoes; had me pissing myself. So for those who have an appreciation for Amanda Seyfried and her awesome rack and lesbian sex then this is a 7; if not then a 5.

The Atom Egoyan behind Chloe is not the auteur behind films like Erotica and The Sweet Hereafter, but he weaves it in the right direction, and the end result may be his most erotic film yet. Ergo, Chloe feels like enough of an Egoyan film for me to argue that going commercial is not something that will degrade the quality of his work, (although I can't say much for Where the Truth Lies.) Dr. Catherine Stewart suspects her husband is cheating on her, so she hires a local prostitute to seduce him, and report back with news. The things that Chloe has to say really turn on Dr. Stewart, and the two women start to fall for each other. But when Catherine decides it is time to pull the plug, Chloe isn't so eager to go away. Chloe grows increasingly eerie, and profound, which draws you in, but in the last twenty minutes, it comes close to falling apart. The picture benefits greatly from by Paul Sarossy's cinematography featuring nuances of harsh light and warm colour tones, that highlight all the interiors. What we have here a classy looking B-movie. It is intriguing but not great art.

This is probably the worst film I've seen this year despite having a lesbian scene! It has a predictable climax, before descending into a ridiculous finale. Before then, there is gratuitous sex... in the form of descriptions and scenes. This includes a barely believable lesbian scene between Julianne Moore's character, and 'Chloe' who has bedded her husband at her request. Except Chloe hasn't really. She made up fictional encounters with the husband just to make Julianne (sorry, can't remember her name in the film) jealous and upset. When Julianne realises the truth, Chloe is busy seducing their son. Then Julianne and Chloe have a confrontation in Julianne's bedroom (her son and Chloe are lying in bed), resulting in Chloe falling out of a window to her death. Don't bother, really.

Atom Egoyan ('The Sweet Hereafter', 'Ararat', 'Where the Truth Lies') has a gift for setting up cinematic surveillance of private encounters and studying the results of an incident on everyone witnessing it. In CHLOE he has engaged the services of Erin Cressida Wilson to adapt the French film NATHALIE by Anne Fontaine to place it on this side of the pond. In the French version the successful actors were Fanny Ardant, Emmanuelle Béart, and Gérard Depardieu: for this version Egoyan has an equally superb cast to carry off this mysterious story with great success. The same question arises in both films: 'what is imagined and what is real?', and it is the getting there that makes this film so fascinating. Catherine Stewart (Julianne Moore) is a gynecologist married to the successful professor of music David (Liam Neeson) and they have a stay-at-home hippie son Michael (Max Thieriot) who goes about his life much the same as his parents: there is superficial companionship but little in depth relationship. The marriage seems satisfactory until Catherine plans a surprise birthday party for David, a party David doesn't attend, and Catherine suspects David of having affairs, a fact that David apparently suggests by his flirtations with waitresses and 'help'. Catherine is shocked, but realizes that as she is aging this may be a normal situation in older marriages. Catherine visits a bar, a private club for assignations, and there she meets Chloe (Amanda Seyfried) and eventually buys Chloe's services as a prostitute to meet her husband and then tell her all about the encounters. It is agreed that Chloe will be paid for her services and only go as far as Catherine instructs. From this point on Catherine and Chloe meet after Chloe has encounters with David and describes the acts of the encounters in vivid and lurid detail. Catherine is fascinated and continues to pay Chloe for on going encounters and subsequent voyeuristic descriptions. Catherine even has a one-night stand of her own with Chloe in an attempt to understand her husband's need for infidelity. Despite the setup of 'private investigator and prostitute detective' the two women become friends. When Catherine realizes she has enough evidence against David to leave him there is a final encounter of the three (Catherine, David, Chloe, and even son Michael) that brings the ingenious surprise ending - an ending too fine to share as it would spoil the film for viewers new to the story. Each of the actors does a star turn - Julianne Moore, Amanda Seyfried, and Liam Neeson - and once again Atom Egoyan takes an implausible story and makes us think. Grady Harp

I like director Egoyan. "The Sweet Hearafter" is a truly remarkable film but "Chloe" goodness gracious me! Just look at the ladies wardrobe and tell me if you can guess what was in Egoyan's mind. Julianne Moore is fun to watch but she does what she usually does, she acts. I'm always so aware of her acting that I'm distracted out of the story. Liam Neeson seems utterly lost and the girl? Amanda Sygfried? Oh, mama mia! She looks like a grotesque blueprint for a new Goldie Hawn. I thought her was one of the worst performances I've seen in a long long time. I suspect Egoyan's intentions were mostly commercial. Naked lesbian scenes...close ups of * and the whole thing is irritating and annoying. The saving grace is the unintentional laughs it provokes. I laughed a lot I must confess but the film, shot beautifully, is an ugly mess

If anyone was suited for remaking the French film Nathalie, it was Atom Egoyan, whose deeply twisted and occasionally perverse studies of sexuality, expressed through an apparently cold directorial eye, go hand in hand with a script that emphasized words over images (though there is a bit more flesh in the English-language transition). Hence the rather brilliant Chloe, whose prime accomplishment lies in its being less showy and pretentious than the director's previous foray into erotic secrets, the ambitious Where the Truth Lies. Set in Egoyan's home town of Toronto, Chloe tells the story of the eponymous call girl (Amanda Seyfried) who is hired by gynecologist Catherine Stewart (Julianne Moore) when the latter starts to suspect her husband (Liam Neeson) is having an affair. Chloe's job is to casually approach him and see if he falls for her charm, thus indicating his propensity for adultery. However, as the girl's reports get more and more graphic, Catherine realizes she has put herself in an awkward position, one that it will be difficult to get out of. 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). The only downside of this approach is the same flaw that was much more evident in Where the Truth Lies, namely a deliberately slow pace that affects the thriller aspects but enhances the emotional poignancy, something that comes off as a paradox given the seemingly cold subject matter. 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! and Mean Girls. Overall, Chloe is a very good movie: sexy without being gratuitous, psychological without getting pompous and, like its title character, delightfully surprising.

CHLOE is the most risible film I've seen since, well, WHERE THE TRUTH LIES. The story is totally whacked and one wonders who in their right mind thought this story made any sense: a spoiled rich gynecologist believes her husband is cheating on her. She suddenly feels invisible: her husband is having sex with one of his young students. Friends are dating young chicks. Her son his sleeping with a hot chick in his bedroom. People all around are boinking chicks. The wife suddenly realizes "Heck, I'm missing on all of the hot action" so she decides to hire a hooker, with the idea of seducing her husband to see if he'll sleep with her, but it's all a ruse really because she's the one who ends up having sex with Chloe the Hooker. Chloe invents all these "hot" stories of her sleeping with the husband, to dupe the silly wife; these stories are so hot the wife decides to have sex with the hooker, because the wife feels she's invisible and by having sex with Chloe it's like some transference thingy going on and part of the passion the husband is sharing with the hooker the wife thinks she'll feel it too. Got that? The logic in the story is so whacked, it had me rolling on the floor. First of all, I can't sympathize/empathize with the wife's pain/grief. She's a wealthy spoiled woman who hires a young woman to trap her husband. Nice character. Second, the couple is a corny couple. Who cares if they don't make it or anything about their happiness. Third, the two women, the silly wife and the hooker, are shown as being total nut jobs: the wife is gullible and accepts every little detail the hooker tells her without any proof of what she's claiming is real and the hooker is shown as being mentally unstable in the SINGLE WHITE FEMALE kind of way. So basically the degrading screenplay portrays these two neurotic women as crazy, conniving, manipulating, narcissistic and out of control with their emotions. They both end-up coning each other while object of the initial target, the boring husband, doesn't even figure in the story. The two scheming women end up looking like two monkeys fellating each other at the zoo. I wanted to throw peanuts at them to make them stop. The ending elevates the level of degradation when Chloe the Hooker sleeps with the son in the parents' bedroom and when they're found out Chloe the Hooker then tries to seduce the wife again, which is seen by her son. The wife, embarrassed, literally pushes Chloe away to her death. Nice. Though the story hints at Pasolini's brilliant TEOREMA, the storyline is straight out of the 1970s Black Emanuelle trash epics. Well, I would rather watch any Laura Gemser flick than this risible piece of "serious" filmmaking. The sex scenes in CHLOE were not hot for one second. Just unconvincing. When the wife suddenly realizes the truth with those fake encounters Chloe has been telling her, she tells the clueless husband what she did: that she hired a hooker to entrap him and that she also ended up having sex with her (and in turn became the cheater here), the husband shrugs it off as if it was normal and OK. Again, this is me on the floor laughing my butt off. If I was the husband, I'd ask the wife to seek professional psychiatric help. I mean, the money she spent on the hooker could have been spent on something more important, ya know, like a brand new flat screen TV for that ridiculously overly designed house of theirs. Even though it's a remake of a French film CHLOE reminded me more of the trashy Italian film called DELERIUM starring Mickey Hargitay. Same insane logic in the storyline with the women being completely crazy and degraded. The excellent Julianne Moore needs to get better projects than this laughable & embarrassing stuff.

When David (Liam Neeson) misses his flight home from New York and, as a result, the surprise party his wife Catherine (Julianne Moore) has planned for him, Catherine is forced to swallow her disappointment and any suspicions and return to the waiting guests. Reading a text message sent to David's phone the following morning from one of his female students, Catherine's fear grows. More suspicious than ever that David is having an affair, Catherine seeks out Chloe (Amanda Seyfried), an escort, hiring her to test David's fidelity. Chloe is a very solid thriller. Extremely engaging and incredibly entertaining, this story is ultimately about human nature and instincts. The film really grabs your attention and visually, it's quite a feat. The minimalistic sets and the way it was shot give this film a really modern and slick look. I feel like I should warn that there's quite a bit of nudity and somewhat graphic scenes but nothing outrageous or out of place. Moore was absolutely terrific, she has proved her value already but here she delivers possibly one of the best performances of her career. Seyfried was quite a surprise. Her performance was subtle but very efficient and she seems a very promising young actress. Liam Neeson was not nearly as good as he usually is but it's understandable considering his wife died during the shooting of the film. As I said, Chloe is a very solid and well done film. Unfortunately it has one major flaw, the predictably of the plot. I saw the twist coming from a mile way and I think any avid movie-goer will too. Still, it was a great watch, very entertaining and extremely well acted. Worth seeing. 7/10

Saw CHLOE last night. I love all of Atom Egoyan's films and this was no exception. We were warned going in that the movie was going to be sexually graphic. While this movie was highly erotic it was done extremely tastefully. Other directors would have gone more and cheapened it. Toward the end I was afraid we were heading for another Fatal Attraction but fortunately did not go that way. This was Julianne Moore's movie, no doubt, and I am rather surprised at the amount of nudity she showed. And Amanda Seyfried was HOT! Liam Neeson is almost a footnote in this film but he shows what a professional he is to do a film of this type after his family tragedy. I think this was the most erotic movie Egoyan's done since Exotica. Highly recommended.