MOVIE REVIEW: Chloe (2009)
I don’t watch more genres projects other than action, science-fiction, and fantasy; my reasoning is that’s the kind of escapism I want. For others it’s comedy, indie films, horror, or in this review’s case, erotic thrillers. I saw the ads and trailers for the movie Chloe back when it came out, marketed as a sleek thriller with some sex in it. It left so much to the imagination, but I thought it’d go the route of Obsessed [2009], but with White people. So I stepped out of my comfort zone to check this movie out.
After watching it, I must say it is one hell of a movie, and is even more so if you’ve never seen anything about it. This movie has highs and lows, and all of them are so low-key thanks to the acting abilities of the cast, consisting of two acting icons and one rising star in the shape of actress Amanda Seyfried (Red Riding Hood [2011], Mean Girls [2004], Pan).
In the role of of our titular character, Miss Seyfried plays a beautiful but alienated call girl who says she can be anyone’s fantasy: their secretary, their daughter, their seventh-grade teacher, and so on. She is recruited for her skill set when she finds herself wrapped up in the inferiority complex of Dr. Catherine Stewart, OB/GYN (Julianne Moore, the Hunger Games franchise, Evolution, Boogie Nights). The doctor belives her husband, Mr. Stewart (Liam Neeson, Darkman, Star Wars Episode I: the Phantom Menace, the Taken franchise), is cheating on her with his music students. Chloe is hired by the doctor to tempt him and to spy on him; the call girl proves herself a very talented liar. The two develop a special relationship which becomes the main focus of the watching audience. Their relationship (and the film) builds to a climax and leaves the viewer wondering about the nature of love as we know it and attraction as it is built into all of us.
My initial focus on the movie was to just see it and stop thinking I should see it. As the movie went on, it afforded me several reasons why I need to see more movies with the actors involved. I have all the reasons I need to see Mr. Neeson, so that’s a given; Julianne Moore has made more movies that are so interesting, yet I have not seen due to budget constraints. More to the point, I would like to see more of the otherworldly beauty of Miss Seyfried. If you’ve ever looked at her, you know that Miss Seyfried does not look like an average person. Something about her is very different. Is it her operatic training, or her teen modeling experience? Probably not, but I can’s imagine what else it could be that’s gonna make me want to watch more of her movies.
Oh, I know why. She’s hot.
CHOICE CUTS:
- Amanda Seyfried, the part where you can see the crazy, and Amanda Seyfried. That is all.
- Throughout the film, we are invited to watch Chloe as she exists — her face, her body, how she moves and what she wears — with focuses on the most sensual parts. While people would call this the ‘male gaze’ in action (as dictated by director Atom Egoyan), she does it for the female gaze as well. This deep into the 21st Century, we cannot discount the desires of women who like this stuff.
The ups and downs, twists and turns of this film completely had me on the edge of my seat. It made me want to know exactly how far the story would go. With two actresses so easy on the eyes, it was a pleasure. Wherever you can watch it, please do so.
