Monday, March 21, 2011

#87: Chloe

Chloe is a 2009 low-budget thriller directed by the indie filmmaker Atom Egoyan and written by Erin Cressida (The Secretary). The film is a remake of the 2003 French version Nathalie - a movie that barely made anyone take notice of it in the French circles. It's a wonder sometimes what makes people remake movies and remake ordinary movies at that.

Chloe stars Amanda Seyfried as Chloe - a prostitute who is paid money by homemaker Catherine ( Julianne Moore) to seduce her husband David (Liam Neeson). The unusual move was instigated in Catherine's mind when David couldn't make it to their home when she had planned a special surprise birthday party for him. David, who is a lecturer, is liberal with his charm towards his students and that is no news to Catherine. Adding fuel to this suspicion of hers that David is cheating on her, is a picture of David with a young student that she finds in his cellphone. The best she can think to confirm this suspicion is hire Chloe. In a similar situation, would you've rather done some groundwork on your own or sought a detective? I am guessing normal people would've. But not Catherine. Her step to hire Chloe seemed a bit extreme and since this deficient move forms the fulcrum of the story, I took some time to warm up to the movie

Fact of the matter is, even if you overlook this transgression, Chloe is just about watchable. It is strong in parts primarily because of the performances of Liam Neeson and Julianne Moore - one a suave, self-assured husband and the other a seemingly wronged and doubting wife. Amanda Seyfried isn't as sexy as a prostitute (who is out to seduce a smooth talker like Liam Neeson) should've been and was probably not the best choice for this role. She is too sugary to be hooker- her deceit always failing to come through as the conniving Chloe. There is a nice twist towards the climax that is fairly engaging in Chloe but the ending disappoints.

Chloe as a movie works like one of those waves we read back in school physics - replete with crests and troughs. It begins in a very promising manner, then loses it's grip, tries to rework and then falls flat towards the end. What should've been an upward graph thus is erratic and barely enjoyable. If your standards with movies are not too high as far as short movies go, this one being a crisp 94 minutes, you could pick this one up. If you let it go, you aren't missing much for sure.

Rating: 5.2/10

No comments: