David O'ConnellChloe
October 18th 2010 04:49
From a once-compelling filmmaker, Chloe (2010) is more than a major disappointment from Atom Egoyan; it almost certainly represents the lowest ebb of this acclaimed Canadian's career to date. Tawdry, dull and pointless, Chloe manages to shake up a family’s dynamics through the introduction of that thriller staple, the unhinged sexy young blonde who in this case swings both ways, thus posing a potential threat to the physical well being of all. That this is a remake of Anne Fontaine’s intriguing, highly watchable French film Nathalie…(2003) makes Egoyan and screenwriter Erin Cressida Wilson’s crimes even harder to stomach.
Toronto gynecologist Catherine Stewart (Julianne Moore) and lecturer husband David (Liam Neeson) are a wealthy couple whose love for one another seems to be on a rapid decline. Now Catherine is suspicious that David’s missed flight on the night he’s supposed to be home for his ‘surprise’ birthday party is symbolic of some deeper malaise. When she finds a photo of him posing contentedly with an attractive young woman on his phone, her instincts go into overdrive. Reluctantly she sets a plan in motion, seeking out a call girl, Chloe (Amanda Seyfried) who she asks to tempt her husband in a public arena to see if he will take the bait, confirming her darkest suspicions of his wandering mind.
The seemingly benevolent Chloe soon reports back with detailed accounts of David’s every word, even going beyond the call of duty to lead him into temptations beyond Catherine’s specifications. In due course as Catherine senses her marriage slipping away she falls into the arms of the sympathetic Chloe who offers her the consolation of physical contact that isn’t grudgingly offered to save face. This leads to complications of an unwanted kind as guilt, the veracity of first person accounts, and ulterior motivations lead this family and the increasingly erratic Chloe – whose own seemingly shiftless façade is pricked by unlikely jealousy - into tricky moral territory.
Unfortunately, Chloe is littered with laughable dialogue that undermines any attempts by Egoyan to pick the film off the canvas where it lays choking, before long, on its depressing genericism. Sure, the execution of ideas is competent, but buried amongst the phony constructs of this unconvincing world and its increasingly lurid, far-fetched scenarios, who really cares? The Stewarts' obscene wealth virtually eliminates any empathy we’re expected to feel once their relationship starts being flushed down the toilet. It’s hard to raise anything more than an ironic grin, especially with the ludicrous entanglement of the doe-eyed Chloe, whose beauty masks a barely concealed streak of insanity.
The couple’s house is a magnificent creation but reflects all that is wrong with Chloe; it takes up much space yet remains empty at the core where a vacant sterility mars the film’s credibility at every turn. A series of contrivances draw laughter for their predictability: Chloe clumsily falling off her bike just as she and Catherine part for the first time; naturally Catherine rushes to her aid before tending to her minor wound, opening up the avenues of communication again. Then there’s the arrival of son Michael (Max Thieriot) at his mother’s office to pick up his tuxedo which for some reason she has tucked away in her work closet. All this to allow for the fortuitous meeting of Michael and Chloe who happens to waltz in at about the same time, thus providing her with another convenient target to strike out at once she’s inevitably cornered like a rabid dog.
"Your lipstick looks absolutely amazing. May I kill you for it?"....."Sleep with my husband and it's yours."
There are scenes here we’ve seen a million times like the wife finally confronting the husband before Michael walks in, Catherine screaming “Go to your room!” Michael responds indignantly, “You’re telling me to go to my room!?” Great dialogue. I can’t forget another line either; Chloe offers her first detailed report of leading a lustful David into a greenery where he allows Chloe to 'feel' him in secret before insisting that he couldn’t come because he had to go back to work! Funny? Ah well, maybe you just had to be there to fully appreciative the utter ludicrousness of this line and so many others.
Technically Egoyan may be covering some of the themes he’s long been fascinated with, but only in broad, conventional strokes. His long-time collaborator, composer Mychael Danna, fashions an semi-effective score that at least attempts to raise this lazy serpentine drama into the realms of something a bit more respectable. Moore, as ever, battles on like a warrior, but for Neeson this is yet another black mark against his name. What an inglorious run of duds he's been involved with lately. It's a pretty sad state of affairs when Taken 2 can't come fast enough. Seyfried is a composite of bland beauties, all Glenn Close lite - or is it Rebecca De Mornay?
This meaningless trash might be excusable if it had been inadvertently picked off the lower rungs at the video store in search of a few vicarious thrills, but from this respected Canadian auteur – working for the first time with somebody else’s screenplay - responsible for such fascinating, complex fare as Exotica (1994), The Sweet Hereafter (1997) and Felicia’s Journey (1999), this represents a massive failure of the most disheartening sort.
Chloe is now showing in Australian cinemas. Not for long.
| 192 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Matt Shea
Comment by David O'Connell
20/20 Filmsight
Screen Fanatic
Comment by ShaunK
Screen Adventure
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
I've been meaning to review The Adjuster and/or Exotica for my CP site.
Comment by David O'Connell
20/20 Filmsight
Screen Fanatic
I actually haven't seen all the early stuff Bryn, but Exotica has always stood out for me. I avoided Where the Truth Lies but have been meaning to get around to it at some stage. Not feeling particularly motivated right now I must say.
Comment by JohnDoe
Film & TV on DVD
Surprised at the reaction here. I thought the trailer looked intriguing though I haven't seen the film yet....but will.
For the record I loved 'Where The Truth lies' despite many opposing it. Curious to see what you think as many thought it an inferior work too.
Comment by David O'Connell
20/20 Filmsight
Screen Fanatic