Moore but I Wanted More
Gynaecologist Catherine Stewart (Julianne Moore) feels that over the years her husband David (Liam Neeson), a professor, has stopped noticing her leading to paranoia as to whether or not he has remained faithful. When David calls to say he missed his flight home and then a day later she finds a picture of him on his phone with an attractive student her suspicions are raised and she tracks down Chloe (Amanda Seyfried) who works as a honey trap. Hiring Chloe to see if David would be tempted she soon discovers that he is when Chloe tells her all about their encounters but it leads to a strange outcome.
NB. This review contains spoilers. Some times a movie is entertaining but yet you find yourself wanting more and despite being both entertaining and intriguing I found after watching "Chloe" it left me with a hole I still needed to fill. Now I mentioned intriguing and after the set up which sees Catherine hiring Chloe to test her husband's faithfulness things take a twist as Chloe's erotic encounters with David leads to erotic encounters between Catherine and Chloe which in turn leads to David to suspect Catherine of being unfaithful. But there are more twists to follow yet still despite being intriguing and sexual some thing about "Chloe" just didn't blow me away, didn't completely satisfy me.
I think in a way my problem with "Chloe" is that it starts of quite calm, quite generic if you like and that works in the examination of Catherine's trust issues with lots of nice touches such as David minimizing what's on his computer when Catherine walks in to the room, whilst Catherine has trust issues with their son as well. But when the twists start to arrive the emphasis of the movie changes and completely changes by the time the movie ends turning "Chloe" almost on its head.
Needless to say "Chloe" does feature a series of good performances with Julianne Moore delivering one of those subtle performances which she is so exceptional at but also of a character which requires a confidence to explore one's self which few actresses can achieve with the same level of naturalness that Moore manages. But Amanda Seyfried also impresses in a role which considering at the time the sort of role she was getting is outside of her comfort zone but for the first two thirds of the movie she nicely underplays her. As for Liam Neeson, well he seems to have been cast because of his looks, because he looks like a father who could attract younger women and have students crush on him.
What this all boils down to is that "Chloe" is certainly a good movie and if you want a sexual movie with a plot which drives it then it should entertain. But considering the calibre of the cast combined with the set up I just felt like I needed more.