Thursday, April 8, 2010

Chloe (Rhoades)

“Chloe” Concocts Erotic Case History
Reviewed by Shirrel Rhoades

Don’t you just love a titillating erotic thriller? That delicious blend of mystery and sex is a combination to rival chocolate and peanut butter.

Director Atom Egoyan brings us one called “Chloe.” It’s a remake of a French movie “Nathalie,” which was loosely based on a Sigmund Freud case history called “Homosexuality in a Woman.”
“Chloe” is seducing audiences at the Tropic Cinema.

Amanda Seyfried (the pretty young actress from “Mama Mia” and “Dear John”) takes the title role, a call girl who is hired by a married woman to have an assignation with her wandering husband.

Julianne Moore (“A Single Man”) is Catherine, the suspicious wife who is worried about her hubby’s fidelity. Liam Neeson (“Taken”) is said spouse, a music professor named David.
Shocking, you say? A wife hiring a call girl to describe sexual encounters with husband. That’s the erotic part.

But as wife and call girl get together for these reports, there’s an attraction. Next thing you know, the two women are having an affair. That’s the erotic part too.
So where’s the mystery? Well, maybe the call girl isn’t what she seems to be. Maybe there’s an element of … untruth in her reports.

Why would a woman engage a prostitute to flirt with her husband and report back rather than hire a private investigator?

In answer, Atom Egoyan hints at the Freudian underpinnings. And he revels in the plot twist his story unveils. “As Chloe says in the beginning, she prides herself on how the client wants to be touched, or what they want to hear. But even in how well-versed this character is, this is a very unusual situation that she’s facing.”

The film’s shocking ending (no, I won’t give it away) has audiences divided. Some hate it; some think it perfect. However, be forewarned that the outcome of this tragic tale differs from the original French version.

Other parts of the script were rewritten on the fly to accommodate Liam Neeson’s absence from the filming when his wife Natasha Richardson died in a skiing accident.

So “Chloe” stands on its own. Not quite like the French film. Not quite like Freud’s case study. Not quite like director Egoyan’s original vision.

But if you like erotic thrillers …
[from Solares Hill]

No comments: