- Studio: Sony Pictures Classics
- Release Date: Mar 26, 2010
User Score
5.2
out of 10
Mixed or average reviews- based on 40 Ratings
User score distribution:
-
Positive: 20 out of 40
-
Mixed: 10 out of 40
-
Negative: 10 out of 40
Review this movie
-
Your Score10 out of 10
-
Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.
-
-
Submit
-
Check Spelling
-
Characters remaining: 5000 out of 5000
- User score
- Most active
- By date
- Most helpful
- Most Clicked
-
Sep 26, 20115"Chloe" is sleek and tense, but fails to maneuver that energy till the end of the movie.
-
FionaR.Mar 29, 20101This movie is nothing but trash!! No message, no suspense no nothing.
-
-
jeffhMar 28, 20108A very good erotic thriller with a great cast,Amanda Seyfried is an up-and-coming star and Julianne Moore is still gorgeous.Hearing Seyfried talk dirty will excite any red blooded heterosexual man.
-
-
bdogMar 28, 20100Preposterous. Hooker develops emotional attachment to THREE in the same family!?!? Superlative films don't need to show as much nudity as this one does--the saving grace(s) are the nude features of the female protagonists. Utter waste. Attended NY premiere and was blown away at atrocity.
-
-
PabloRMar 28, 20108Beginning starts off a tad slow, but once it picks up, it really picks up. Sad, slightly sexy, and really shocking. Good movie overall, and especially good acting from the lead roles.
-
-
Aug 11, 20108
-
Sep 13, 20102It started out really good; good story good acting and eventually developed into what I thought was going to be a thriller. Some interesting twists to the plot...however. The end completely blows the picture. Really, really weak ending...my wife and I were disappointed.
-
Oct 4, 20107I am an Atom Egoyan fan. This isn´t his highest moment yet is not disposable either. Julianne Moore is grand as a woman on the verge and Liam Neeson is quite believable as a hunky teacher. The son and Seyfried I could careless, notwithstanding the do 'work' the ensemble piece. Do have patience with this one, don't be hasty to discard it. I does deserve a second look.
-
Nov 2, 20101One of the weirdest films I have seen all year, and not in a good way. Oscar winners pair up to do a terrible film ..... what a shame. http://www.dukeandthemovies.com/search?q=Chloe
-
Nov 25, 20105The story was okay. It could have been better. This movie was bored the first 10 min. It took a long time to get to the good parts. I wouldn't recommend you to see this on blu ray or dvd. But I think this a good movie to watch on hbo or showtime.
-
May 2, 20120This movie is terrible. It's very, very predictable, even if you have only a little imagination. It only gets a good review from critics, because Liam Neeson is in it. Don't waste your time.
-
Nov 15, 20115An interesting movie throughout but probably could've been better. The focus was more on the females' side of the story and less on the males; irrelevant, but lets say they got too much screen time! A one sided story that keeps the reality out of the picture and bases everything on imagination.
-
Apr 18, 20128
prev
next
Page:
- 1
-
60Fails to completely satisfy, thanks to problems with the script that neither director nor stars can overcome.
-
60Strong turns from its female leads and Amanda Seyfried elicits more sexual tension from proceedings than "Jennifer's Body" ever managed.
-
70Moore and Neeson beautifully underplay their roles, lending screenwriter Erin Cressida Wilson's ("Secretary") dialogue an unexpected, palpable poignancy.