Film review: CHLOE (Atom Egoyan, 2009)

A remake of Anne Fontaine’s 2003 film Nathalie…, Chloe is a film about obsession, sex, and the tangled web that lies weave. Julianne Moore is a successful gynaecologist, who’s accomplishments in her job sadly do not translate to that in her married life. Her son’s a semi-manic depressive teenager who shuts her out and her husband (played by Liam Neeson), misses his own surprise birthday party, under suspicious circumstances.

Her mistrust is further fuelled when she spies a picture message on his iPhone (there’s your product placement). Deciding to take matters into her own hands, she enlists upscale hooker Amanda Seyfried to initially talk to him, see what happens, but soon their encounters become more-than-just-talking as relations between the three become increasingly convoluted and messy.

Julianne Moore is one of my favourite actresses, and her performance in Chloe is the epitome of nuance and quiet heartbreak. The writing in the film is less than stellar, and she is the glue that cements the entire film together. 

Amanda Seyfried, with her huge doll eyes is nice to look at and everything, but her acting is a bit off here because one minute she’s sexy and smouldering, and next she exudes a childish air which does not gel at all with the character she’s playing.

Liam Neeson is good as the possibly philandering husband who simply gets sexier and more attractive to women with age, and the relationship between him and Moore is portrayed well. The relationship between Seyfried and Moore (which enters sapphic territory), not so much. The two women have no chemistry whatsoever and whilst men watching wouldn’t really mind, I just found myself embarrassed for both women in their cringey “sex” scene.

This claustrophobic three-hander boils and bubbles up nicely to its ultimately shattering denouement, and there are a fair few thrills along the way.  Perhaps because I'd seen the original, I knew what was coming, and thus the "twist" didn't surprise me at all, though to be fair, I think most of the uninitiated will see it a mile coming too.

For all the talent involved (Egoyan himself has covered sexual obsession so much better), I couldn’t help feeling a little disappointed.

5/10

Clash of the Titans (Louis Leterrier, 2010)

I haven't been to the cinema for over three weeks (the last release I’d seen at the cinema was Shank on the 29th March) due to various things beyond my control (ie not having enough time or money), but on Wednesday night, me and my housemates thought we’d take advantage of Orange Wednesdays, treat ourselves and check out Clash of the Titans in 3D.

The story is an age-old one: Zeus, Olympian god, creator of man, finds his creations turning against him and rebelling. In an attempt to put them back into their places, he allows his brother Hades to enlist hell upon them all, so that they will be praying once again. However, Hades, smarting from his brother condemning him to the underworld, has some plans of his own to overthrow everybody. The only person who can stop him? Demi-God Perseus, son of Zeus.



Clash of The Titans is a remake of the 1981 Ray Harryhausen film. It was he who first decided to instill a Kraken, the Medusa, and all the various other characters we see in the modern day edition of the film. He based these characters from Greek myths, and for the most part, played true to the myths. Louis Leterrier uses the same characters and plot, and updates the 80s version with some very fancy fantasy sequences. It’s not a criticism – the Medusa scene was completely breathtaking and the film, on the whole, is pure cinema, so in terms of entertainment, Clash of the Titans certainly does its job.

One criticism that I did have, however, was the clear audience exploitation in trying to push a 2D film as 3D. I still haven’t seen Avatar, but I hear that was a film that was intended to be in 3D, and as such, the cinematic experience worked. With Clash of the Titans, however, the 3D “experience” was akin to the time me and my dad (both of us wear glasses anyway) watched Arsenal v Manchester Utd in 3D in a pub and both of us left with headaches, wishing that they’d just left the damn thing in 2D. Clearly studios thought “hey, it’s the summer, let’s milk these stupid-ass audiences for all they’re worth”, got the director to insert the odd scene in 3D. On the whole, I just wanted to take my thick frames off and watch it through the glasses I was already wearing. Bah.

That said, I enjoyed the cast, a lot. Gemma Arterton has turned my head ever since I first saw her, and as Persues’ Guardian Angel Io, she is ethereal, beautiful and hypnotic. Sam Worthington isn’t given an awful lot to do aside from brood and kill monsters, but he does that well. I enjoyed the Liam Neeson/Ralph Fiennes casting as good/evil yin/yangs, because it brought memories of Schindler’s List to the cinema geek in me. Both are apt in their roles, though both are also capable of a lot, lot more; Fiennes, in particular, looks a little awkward in his raspy voice. I enjoyed the “Slumdog” factor – trying to tempt in teen audiences by bunging the Skins cast in the film – in this case, both Stonem siblings. Kaya Scodelario does nothing more than wear a toga and look pretty, but looking pretty has always been something she does exquisitely well. Nicholas Hoult, on the other hand, gives one of his weakest performances, but thankfully, he too isn’t in it much either. The best performance of the film, by far and away belongs to Mads Mikkelsen (the baddie in Casino Royale), as Draco, in a performance that’s by turns swaggerous and wryly comedic, the only performance in the film which hints at a little more character development than just slaying monsters and shouting nonsensically.

All that being said, however, I still enjoyed the film, a lot. Perhaps it wasn’t quite worth the half of £8.25 (plus half of £8.75 that me and Garry spent on drinks and popcorn), but it’s nice to now and then put my pretentious self away and just sit back and enjoy a movie. There were flaws aplenty in this, but the entertainment factor – just about – redeemed it.

My Eyes are Blurred, My Senses are Limited. Am I suspecting a familiar twinge?

Chloe, starring three of my favourite actors, Liam Neeson, Amanda Seyfried, and the very beautiful and talented Julianne Moore (50 this year, but still looking smokin'), is essentially a remake of 2003's Nathalie..., in which a wife, sensing that her husband may be philandering, hires the prostitute Nathalie to put his fidelity to the test. In the original, French screen icons Fanny Ardant, Emmanuelle Béart and Gérard Depardieu starred as the claustraphobic threesome. Here, Moore plays the suspicious doctor wife, Liam Neeson is the husband and Amanda Seyfried is Chloe, the epynomous escort. Of course, things never work out as smoothly as planned, and Moore's Catherine soon finds that she has let herself in for far more than she'd bargained for when she let Chloe into her life.

If the cast alone isn't enough to tempt you into seeing this film, there's also the rather exciting promise of seeing Amanda Seyfried ditch the sunny persona that suits her so well in movies like Mean Girls and Mamma Mia!, to see a darker side of her, which will surely test her acting muscles a bit more. This darker side even involves her in a scene wherein she seduces Julianne Moore's wide-eyed wife. My favourite cinematic wife of Liam Neeson's has thus far been Laura Linney, but it'll be exciting to see what a photogenic couple he'll make with Moore, and Nathalie..., whilst a little uneven, was a terrific watch, centred around a thrilling lead performance by the stunning Béart. With indie king Atom Egoyan at the helm, Chloe is sure to be a intruiging watch. When it hits cinema screens in the UK on the 5th March, I'll be one of the first ones there.