Chloe (2010)

Chloe is good with words, or so she tells us in the opening minutes of the film. Since she’s a call girl with an upwardly mobile clientele, she’s obviously good with more than just words, but her point is well taken. Chloe is a pro (by any definition), particularly in her ability to read a client; she acts as a mirror and amplifier of their desires. This provocative film from Canadian director Atom Egoyan functions in a similar fashion, as the titular character, skillfully portrayed by Amanda Seyfried, is really more like a supporting role–her actions reflecting and amplifying the sexual landscape of the actual lead role, her client, Catherine Stewart (Julianne Moore).

Catherine is a Toronto gynecologist; her husband, David (Liam Neeson), is a music professor, first seen teaching a class about an aria in Don Giovanni by enumerating the hero’s sexual conquests; their son, Michael (Max Thieriot), is a gifted pianist, but also a sullen teenager sneaking his girlfriend into his bedroom. Sexuality is omnipresent in this household, and despite their home’s modern design with large windows and Plexiglas panels, there’s less transparency within the family residing there. Catherine realizes this to an embarrassing degree when she throws an elegant surprise party for David, with all their friends gathered at the house, but David doesn’t show up (he supposedly missed his flight home from New York). He appears to lie when she quizzes him the next morning, and after she finds an incriminating message, she starts to suspect her husband is cheating. But she has no real evidence of his infidelity.

Catherine and Chloe first meet by accident in a restaurant ladies’ room, bonding momentarily over a toilet paper shortage in one of the stalls. When Catherine returns to her table to find her husband and a male friend playing “Spot The Hooker,” she realizes what Chloe is. Catherine later spies the young woman from her office window, tracks her down, and makes her an offer. She’ll pay Chloe to go to a café David frequents and make herself known to him, see if he takes the bait, and report back to Catherine with the results. This “business transaction,” as Catherine insists on describing it, results in some extremely personal ramifications for all involved, especially the client herself.

Though this brief synopsis makes it sound like something Maury Povich would film with a hidden cameras, Chloe is far more probing and insightful than exploitative. Atom Egoyan has a knack for character-fueled drama, focusing on the sometimes wide-ranging responses to plot development rather than the events that incite these responses. His Oscar-nominated 1997 masterpiece, The Sweet Hereafter, is a great example; the tragic incident that sets the story in motion is hinted at but not fully revealed until a flashback scene halfway through, so the film’s focus is on the variety of emotionally charged responses of people coping with the aftermath.

Likewise, Chloe offers basically a four-character domestic drama initiated by a woman’s reaction to her husband’s suspicious behavior, and the answer to “Did he or didn’t he?” is ultimately of lesser importance than the emotional rollercoaster ride Catherine takes and the fallout that investigation brings upon her family, as well as Chloe. A twist late in the proceedings seems almost obvious in retrospect, given the clues sprinkled throughout. Egoyan heightens the mystery with some deception of his own, employing a touch of Hitchcockian legerdemain to intriguing effect, augmented by Mychael Danna’s lush, melodramatic score; these elements help to balance out the too-pat ending, which is the only noticeably weak element of the film.

What keeps this movie compelling are the three lead actors. Liam Neeson is a fine actor to begin with, but this is the project he was working on when wife Natasha Richardson suffered her fatal skiing accident; he returned to work on the film following her funeral, and consequently his character’s words and actions carry additional gravitas. He’s note-perfect here.

After sitting through the debacle of a Miley Cyrus movie last week, it’s refreshing to watch a rising young actress who can actually, you know, act. Amanda Seyfried has a lot of heat these days thanks to her role in the international hit Mamma Mia! and the recent release Dear John. She’s not just another dewy-eyed ingenue, but a smart actress, capable of both a popular recurring role on the TV series Veronica Mars and a valuable member of the talented ensemble cast of HBO’s polygamist drama Big Love. As she’s leaving her TV career behind to accommodate a growing demand in movies, this performance serves to showcases her talent, from her nuanced characterization to her surprisingly bold sexuality. Ms. Seyfried holds her own opposite two strong actors in this film, and that bodes quite well for her future.

But the real star of this film is Julianne Moore, one of the bravest actresses in cinema today (watch her argument scene with Matthew Modine in Robert Altman’s Short Cuts for a graphic illustration). Seriously, what will it take for her to win the Oscars and accolades she richly deserves? She should’ve won Best Supporting Actress twice already, both for her brilliant performances in Boogie Nights and The Hours. Because Chloe is an independent Canadian film released early in the year, the Academy and critics’ groups may overlook her truly Oscar-caliber work when awards season rolls around, and that would be a shameful oversight. Moore carries the bulk of this movie, reflected in her facial expressions and body; she’s almost like a screen for the story to be projected upon. Moore and Seyfried mesh perfectly, and, with director Egoyan guiding them, they make this seductive tale a fascinating experience.

(For more erotic thrillers, be sure to visit Amazon. They have thousands of film to purchase, and the commission we receive for sending you there ensures that we’ll be able to bring you additional movie reviews in the future.)