Suspectant son mari d'infidélité, la gynécologue Catherine Stewart engage une escorte appelée Chloé afin de vérifier sa fidélité. Bientôt, les relations entre les trois s'intensifient.Suspectant son mari d'infidélité, la gynécologue Catherine Stewart engage une escorte appelée Chloé afin de vérifier sa fidélité. Bientôt, les relations entre les trois s'intensifient.Suspectant son mari d'infidélité, la gynécologue Catherine Stewart engage une escorte appelée Chloé afin de vérifier sa fidélité. Bientôt, les relations entre les trois s'intensifient.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 3 victoires et 5 nominations au total
- Alicia
- (as Laura De Carteret)
- Trina
- (as Tiffany Knight)
Avis à la une
Catherine (Moore) hires Chloe (Seyfried), an escort, to test her husband's (Neeson) loyalty towards her. However, Chloe falls in love with Catherine and the two women get intimate, which complicates their lives.
Chloe starts off as an intriguing psychological drama - and then begins to veer off into B-movie territory, although Egoyan packs in enough wisdom about the slow erosion of relationships, about aging, about female desire, to make the film utterly worthwhile. Moore and Seyfried provide the film with an intense breath of authenticity guaranteeing you feel the pain inflicted upon their characters by the plot's extreme circumstances.
The script's feminine perspective helps elevate the film from Egoyan's usual sexy (but satisfying) thriller into something a tad more insightful. The films seductive aesthetic is both distancing and, largely on the strength of Moore's translucent performance and Seyfried's boldness, forcibly intimate.
The film may be predictable and a little messy when it comes to the story-telling but Moore and Seyfried deliver enough hot chemistry to keep an audience's interest until the final moments. Between the strong acting, camera work, the subtle yet powerful score and a compelling story that lures us immediately, Chloe is ultimately a recommended watch.
Here we had an original French film that was really quite effective. It powerfully gave us the inner dance of two conflicting souls of the performance of Woman. It was delicate, took fewer risks than we would allow, but impressed by its structure and intent.
Now it is transferred to the English language, a transition that usually and unnecessarily dulls the edges. The filmmaker is Atom Egoyan, who has made at least one essential film. I should say "director" rather than filmmaker because this has none of his precise confusion, none of his danger. He clearly is a director for hire, with someone else having commissioned a compete rewrite.
We still have two women and a husband. We still have fragments of the situation. But the whole thing is restructured. We no longer have an inner exploration, puzzlement, self- negotiation. We no longer explore humanness. Now it is all external. These really are two competing women in a traditional thriller model. Instead of allowing the structural drift into internal issues, we now have a son who plays an essential role, establishing an external observer.
This is a mess. The writer previously did well in being and writing a tortured woman. For some reason, the producers thought that was what "Nathalie" needed. Gosh, what a bad calculation! And that's with Julianne Moore, who could have made the original into life- altering art.
Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.
And even though that is the basic storyline, there is so much more that is left unsaid; things Catherine thinks she knows but doesn't know about her husband, things Chloe knows about Catherine that Catherine herself doesn't even know; and in the middle of it all, the viewer who finds out we didn't know much at all about it all. The audience is pretty much kept in the dark as to what is really going on with Chloe until one small scene that immediately switches the direction of the movie. It's not one of those hokey melodramatic twists, but will definitely have you playing back the entire movie in your mind because it sheds everything in a new light. Chloe brags at the beginning of the film, in a voice-over narration, that she has the gift of intuiting what people want and need without it being said. She can be all things to all people. And unfortunately for Julianne Moore's character, Chloe is exactly right....just not in the way that you might initially think she is.
What makes this movie good is that it has layers. Just as in real life, people are inevitably much different than what they appear to be on the surface. In a lesser film, the characters and plot would be one-dimensional and by far less interesting.
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
If there is a sub-genre called sexual thriller, "Chloe" would be the prototype. The plot works very well, it's very engaging. The sexual mystery and tension are captivating, and the copious nudity does not even come across as over the top or contrived. Just as you thought you guessed the whole plot, it twists in the most dramatic way. There is so much suspense, excitement and mystery to the story. "Chloe" is a very good film with a wow factor, that keeps me glued to the screen.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesIn the middle of March 2009, Liam Neeson interrupted filming his scenes in order to visit his wife Natasha Richardson in the hospital after she had a skiing accident. The brain injury she received from this accident led to her death a few days later. Just a few days after her death, Neeson voluntarily returned to the set and completed his performance. The filmmakers changed the script accordingly, and Neeson completed his performance in two days.
- GaffesThroughout the film, Catherine receives text messages from Chloe. The dates that appear on her cell phone do not progress. One date towards the start of the film reads "March 27th," and another towards the end of the film reads "March 25th," despite that meaning time is moving backwards.
- Citations
Catherine Stewart: How do you do this?
Chloe: I try to find something to love in everybody. Even if it's a small thing. Something about the way someone smiles. There's always something, there has to be. I try to make myself generous. I do things I don't want to do. I... I think about what not to criticize. And the strangest things come back to me.
Catherine Stewart: Like?
Chloe: You.
Catherine Stewart: Me?
Chloe: Yeah. Yeah people like you walk into my life.
- Crédits fousDaniel Pellerin (with thanks for 25 years of great work, from Atom)
- ConnexionsFeatured in The Rotten Tomatoes Show: From Paris with Love/Dear John/Frozen (2010)
- Bandes originalesExcerpt from 'Don Giovani' - Aria No. 4 'Madamina, il catalogo è questo'
Written by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (uncredited)
Performed by Ildebrando D'Arcangelo, Wiener Philharmoniker, Daniel Harding
A production of UNITEL in co-production with ORF and Classica in co-operation with the SALZBURG FESTIVAL
Meilleurs choix
- How long is Chloe?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Sites officiels
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Una propuesta atrevida
- Lieux de tournage
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 14 000 000 $US (estimé)
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 3 075 255 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 900 688 $US
- 28 mars 2010
- Montant brut mondial
- 13 657 649 $US
- Durée1 heure 36 minutes
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 1.85 : 1