"Chloe"

Atom Egoyan's return to the big screen since 2008's "Adoration," brings us a sexual thriller, though that's being generous, of what we've seen repeatedly in this genre. In "Chloe," his direction lends little thought to this type of obsession-marriage-sex-sex-marriage-obsession picture. One thing the audience does got a whole lot of is skin. Amanda Seyfried (Chloe), most recently of the gag-fest "Jennifer's Body", is the hot topic of this conversation. Julianne Moore, Catherine, has appeared nude before and for the most part her nudity was somewhat integral to the story. The frequented number of times that Ms. Seyfried is shown in either full frontal or from the side feels beyond voyeuristic and almost pornographic.

The film centers around Chloe (Ms. Seyfried), a "lady of the evening" who has a particular outlook on life that arouses our curiosity of her justification. Beginning with a voice-over(which never again happens in the film, only for a brief 45 seconds here), we watch Chloe getting dressed. Mr. Egoyan may have been issuing us a warning to "run now or sit for the ride" when the very first shot of the movie is a medium over the shoulder shot revealing Chloe topless. Catherine (Ms. Moore), a gynecologist who works next to a hotel that Chloe is "working" at, has planned a surprise party for her husband David (Mr. Neeson). The plot was not entirely clear as to why David had to continuously fly back and forth to his job. However, the night of his birthday his students ask him out for a drink, knowing he needs to be on a plane and unaware there is a surprise party waiting for him, he intentionally misses his flight to spend it with his student, lying to Catherine about missing the plane by a mere minute. Catherine notices a picture on David's phone of him and a student the night before. Giving him the chance to confess, she already feels as if her world has been taken away. He does not confess, and thus are introduced to Chloe. Ms. Moore's portrayal of Catherine seemed to have the most depth behind it without dipping into the melodrama which is at the center of this film. She hires Chloe to seduce David, seeing if he takes the bait. When Chloe reports back, with explicit sexual detail, Catherine's life begins to fall apart. Her son Max has no respect for her and sleeps with his girlfriend in the house, continuously shutting Catherine out of his life. Soon the curiosity turns to obsession and this is exactly the part of the film that, I believe, led to its negative reviews. Up until this point, the plot was intriguing, the actors interesting, even the score was haunting. When Chloe becomes obsessed with Catherine, the audience is aware of her vulnerability and that she is capable of more than just boiling a rabbit. Slow motion shots, a graphic sex scene between Ms. Moore and Ms. Seyfried and dialogue that becomes painful to listen to are only a fraction of why the second half of this movie made you wish it was, infact, on Cinemax.

Praise goes the actors, as it usually does, to pull off something not quite as mainstream as "Chloe." Ms. Moore is known for her vibrant, sexy roles, in which she takes pride in and we take pride in watching. Here, she is on the reverse. She becomes someone discovering a part of desire that is brought out for reasons that remain unclear. Through the film, she remains harried and distressed. For a brief moment, we can understand what makes her jealousy become confused with attraction and impishness.

Ms. Seyfried has held movies together in the past with grace. Here, she repeats this until the "climax" of the film. Having played Chloe with a brilliant isolation, childlike nature and a soft-spokenness that lets us see inside her. It lets us imagine her thoughts instead of her being portrayed as someone falling for a "client." She seems in love at times, doing her job and reporting home. The problem? She's so innocent, it feels as a daughter spying and reporting back to her mother, who she then falls into an obsession with.

Ms. Seyfried's nudity which has been the debate since a scene of the two women kissing was leaked on the internet will draw people in. The story, as its being represented in reviews, will also draw people in. Mr. Neeson gives a wonderful performance here. Watch for a scene in a cafe that becomes chilling for all three actors when a twist is revealed. And once again, therein lies the sole problem with Chloe. These wonderful actors gain our attention and interest but to a story being told that is entirely predictable, line to line, point to point. Though a remake, the source of the entertainment here comes out to shock value. We are shocked to see Ms. Seyfried in such a sexually explicit role that it lends a recollection back to Dakota Fanning's horrifying scene in "Hounddog". The film maintains humor at times which is a welcome release. "Chloe", in the end, is THAT movie. It's the movie you cannot separate the audience's laughter from being genuine or ridiculing.

Beautiful cinematography, which Egoyan is known for and a haunting score will keep you in your seats until the end. And those interested in seeing "the chick from Big Love" bare it all will surely be in attendance. Going into "Chloe", someone told me to go in expecting trash and to come out with your own opinion. "Chloe" is not trash. "Chloe" is not a breakthrough or even engaging enough to call "good." It is, however, one film that willingly and forcefully reaffirms that sex on screen in Hollywood is continuing to be used as a promotional device instead of a creative one.