User Score
5.4

Mixed or average reviews- based on 54 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 29 out of 54
  2. Negative: 11 out of 54

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Sep 26, 2011
    5
    "Chloe" is sleek and tense, but fails to maneuver that energy till the end of the movie.
  2. Aug 11, 2010
    8
    I've seen many films just like or similar to Atom Egoyan's "CHLOE" I can name a few right off the top of my head: "Fatal Attraction"(1987), "9 1/2 Weeks"(1986), "Indecent Proposal"(1993), "Lolita(1997), "Disclosure"(1994). In addition, one of the most infamous of the erotic thriller genre "Basic Instinct"(1992), now I ask you what all these films have in common. Simple they all have alluring femme fatale characters that try to seduce and kill and assert there power over men how theses beautiful and dangerous women and easily manipulate and control the men that are either after them or desire them. Theses type of films can go one of two ways 1. down the road of complete and utter absurdity and rampant sexuality(Basic Instinct, Lolita) that don't have a shred of intelligence and only serve the purpose of giving audiences some good sex scenes and nothing much else. On the other hand, the film can balance brains and sex to coherently tell an intelligent story of love, desire and family social angst (Fatal Attraction, Unfaithful, Eyes wide Shut) to make the film more than about sex. Itâ Expand
  3. Sep 13, 2010
    2
    It 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.
  4. Oct 4, 2010
    7
    I 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.
  5. Nov 2, 2010
    1
    One 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
  6. Nov 25, 2010
    5
    The 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.
  7. May 2, 2012
    0
    This 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.
  8. Nov 15, 2011
    5
    An 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.
  9. Apr 18, 2012
    8
    This movie has surprised me! It is intense, rich, and deep. The original is the French movie 'Nathalie' with Emmanuelle Beart. 'Nathalie' is a classic and I did enjoy it, but I feel ' Chloe' was superior. In my opinion, Atom Egoyan has delivered to us an improved story that I felt real. If you ask me to pick a flaw, I wouldn't be able to do so...at least not promptly. The art direction was great too, and all the actors's performances were excellent, but Amanda Seyfried was simply outstanding! If you have the chance to watch both of them, do it and then pick your favourite...but don't just trust the reviews...try it yourself! Expand
  10. Jun 22, 2013
    8
    "Chloe" is synonymous with sexual tension. It's avant-garde, a real erotic thriller. It's like "Eliana, sister-in-law" with a sexual tension with no resolving. Julianne Moore and Amanda Seyfried have good chemical connection. Good remake!
Metascore
48

Mixed or average reviews - based on 33 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 10 out of 33
  2. Negative: 4 out of 33
  1. 60
    Fails to completely satisfy, thanks to problems with the script that neither director nor stars can overcome.
  2. Reviewed by: Anna Smith
    60
    Strong turns from its female leads and Amanda Seyfried elicits more sexual tension from proceedings than "Jennifer's Body" ever managed.
  3. Moore and Neeson beautifully underplay their roles, lending screenwriter Erin Cressida Wilson's ("Secretary") dialogue an unexpected, palpable poignancy.