Chloe Reviews

  • Most of Chloe is plodding and drab. We're a step ahead of Egoyan's tricks, and that's because we've seen them -- all of them -- before.

    Owen Gleiberman — Entertainment Weekly

  • As it slides wearily into worn-out sex thriller conventions, Chloe becomes tedious and mechanical. When it's over, you're left feeling kind of cheap.

    A.O. Scott — New York Times

  • Chloe descends into a preposterous third act that, by any measure, qualifies as a disaster. But it's proof of Egoyan's skill that the film works for as long as it does.

    Ann Hornaday — Washington Post

  • It can't be recommended even to people who mostly just want to see Amanda Seyfried naked.

    Janice Page — Boston Globe

  • The grotesque finale aside, it's all too soigne to be truly risible, but, thanks to Egoyan's trademark mix of detachment and prurience, the fun is more cheesy than queasy.

    J. Hoberman — Village Voice

  • If you've been waiting desperately for a lesbian Fatal Attraction that manages to be simultaneously slick and tawdry, your wish has finally been granted.

    Elizabeth Weitzman — New York Daily News

  • What seemed like standard practice for Parisians comes across here as unsmiling porno-farce.

    Anthony Lane — New Yorker

  • Egoyan never makes a story with one level. He never reveals all of the motives, especially to his characters. He invites us to be voyeurs of surfaces that may not conceal what they seem.

    Roger Ebert — Chicago Sun-Times

  • Its twisty plot ultimately turns into Fatal Attraction with the husbandly guilt ingeniously removed.

    J. R. Jones — Chicago Reader

  • Moore, Seyfried and Neeson each boast sufficient sexuality to power a single movie on his or her own. Collectively, they are the erotic dream team.

    Carrie Rickey — Philadelphia Inquirer

  • Chloe is an astute character study in the form of an erotic suspense story.

    Colin Covert — Minneapolis Star Tribune

  • Atom Egoyan gets the erotic stuff right but pretty much drops the thriller part on its head.

    Tom Long — Detroit News

  • The story is the problem here, devolving into a ridiculous situation that produces far more groans than chills or thrills.

    Bill Goodykoontz — Arizona Republic

  • With a different cast and director, this movie would be just another fuzzily lit made-for-TV movie. But because of the performances and the rather gorgeous cinematography, one is left wishing that it just could have been something more.

    Sara Vilkomerson — New York Observer

  • Sexual suspicion and game-playing spiral down from the exotically intriguing to outright silliness in Chloe.

    Todd McCarthy — Variety

  • Chloe may be otherwise forgettable, but it offers one of the steamier sex scenes you're likely to see at the movies this year.

    Kyle Smith — New York Post

  • The film finds real sensual heat whenever Moore and Seyfried are together, and Egoyan and cinematographer Paul Sarossy turn up the thermostat by making Toronto locales seem exotic and vaguely sinister.

    Peter Howell — Toronto Star

  • It looks pretty, the actors try their best, and we may have found a burgeoning star in Amanda Seyfried. Everything else presented here is worth nothing more than a few well-timed eye rolls.

    Laremy Legel —

  • This is a high-toned erotic thriller, handled with style and some emotionally raw scenes, aiming for an effect that's pleasingly unnerving, if not outright arousing.

    Liam Lacey — Globe and Mail

  • The only Verhoeven element that's missing is deliberate camp, a healthy ladling of which might have made Chloe worth watching for some reason other than the prospect of glimpsing Seyfried's and Moore's admirably formed torsos.

    Dana Stevens — Slate

Top Movies