smithellie1966

This movie is a drag. It is poorly made, everything looks fake and the story is predictable to the extreme. The acting is also incredibly bad. Kate Winslet, a very talented actress, was painful to watch, for she was THAT bad in every scene. Idris Elba, with whom I am not familiar was just a bad. The "famous" sex scene that lasted few seconds, did not save this drivel. In short, there is nothing to watch, but the mountains, for a few minutes. Shame, shame, hame to all.

I recommend you watch this movie first, then read reviews. Those who are expecting sexually explicit scenes would be disappointed. As for me, I enjoyed this nicely made movie. The acting is superb as pretty much in all French and European movies. I have few unanswered questions about the young guy with so many tattoos, but may be it was meant to be this way, to leave his motives unknown. A scene when he left her money is also confusing. Her story is also remains unknown. All in all it is a snapshot of a segment of life of two people. There is no beginning and no end. A professionally made snapshot.

This movie is a remake of a french drama Nathalie... (2003) with Fanny Ardant, Emmanuelle Béart, Gérard Depardieu, only with a different, typical for Hollywood ending. WATCH NATHALIE before commenting on Chloe. If you did not watch Nathalie, you might even like Chloe, but it doesn't stand to the French version. The acting other than Julianne Moore is horrible. I don't remember a single movie with Liam Neeson where his acting talents(if he has it) shine. Amanda Seyfried was good in Mama Mia, but certainly isn't up to the task in Chloe. Chloe is full of empty dialogues that have no relation to the story whatsoever (sneezing, zinc, son's problems etc. ????!!!) This is the same situation as with "The vanishing", 1993 French version and 1998 Hollywood version. The original beats the remake.