Just got back from Chloe. This movie's not for everyone, after the trailer though, I knew I'd like it and I did but it could have been a lot better and just reached the bar for me. The cast was good, I'm not a fan of Julianne Moore though, she's too typecasted to me and for some reason I've just never liked her. Everyone I saw it with really liked Amanda Seyfried as Chloe, and she did do a good job and I really like her but I feel like another actress could have nailed it and made it something else. It might be that I don't find Amanda Seyfried as that "seductive" actress. I liked the premise a lot of the film and it does a good job but I feel they could have explored more in the thriller genre, it's more of a drama and I was expecting it to be more thrilling. My main problem with this film is that it left me feeling a little left on edge, it had great build up but the ending/climax, which felt as if it would pay off, didn't... instead it had a brief moment and ended rather abruptly. Overall, I liked it but I just thought they could have done more with it, it's entertaining, good, it's got some pretty steamy scenes but it could have delivered a lot more.

I agree, kev. I like the premise and I'm probably going to steal it one day.

The ending is what - no pun intended - killed it for me. If the trailer hadn't revealed one crucial scene, I probably would've been more surprised. But the way it was, it wasn't that shocking. I'm surprised David (played by Liam Neeson in a phoned in performance) accepted Catherine's apology so quickly. I wasn't surprised Chloe bagged the son.

I liked the acting for what it was. The actors were given the script and knew what they were working with. I doubt any of them expected Oscar caliber work.

So my review boils down to this: boobs, boobs and more boobs.

Three things I look for in a movie.


Phil

I never thought Julianne, who I like as an actor, would ever do a lesbian sex scene. She has more chemistry with Amanda than with Liam.

Spoilers...

Quoted from ABennettWriter I liked the acting for what it was. The actors were given the script and knew what they were working with. I doubt any of them expected Oscar caliber work.

Of course, the film is by an Oscar-nominated writer-director.  And for that matter an Oscar-nominated producer.    I thought the script was great...probably slightly better than the film, actually.  No.  Maybe not.

Quoted from ABennettWriter She has more chemistry with Amanda than with Liam.

Kinda the point, no?

I'm saddened, but I suppose not surprised, that people are disappointed by the ending.  I know it was marketed as a thriller but when the first act wraps up it seemed pretty clear that the film had no pretenses and was a straight drama.  The simple fact that someone's life is threatened in the final scene certainly does not make it a thriller, or justify marketing it as one.

I don't think the end is supposed to be particularly shocking -- certainly, I suppose, suspenseful.  It seems to me that it is the logical end to the story, as explained in the opening sequence.  Chloe becomes a living, breathing dream, and then disappears (I'm paraphrasing from memory).

I don't think we are supposed to be surprised that Chloe has sex with her son.  His weakness is set up in the first act and it's clear what's going to happen the first time Chloe sees him.  

I do agree that it was ridiculous how quickly Liam Neeson accepted her apology.  Not only was he borderline unfazed when she explained that she'd had sex with a young woman, he somehow took this to instantly solve their marital problems.  The truth may set you free, but whether it does so that quickly is a little questionable.  

I think it's a shame to talk about such a complex film as if it's a tawdry thriller.  Then again, maybe I'm reading too much into a tawdry thriller...