web
counter
 

Getting a Limited Release

By William Goss | Posted Under Film Reviews | Comments (27)



chloe_40.jpg

Atom Egoyan’s Chloe opens with Amanda Seyfried’s eponymous prostitute describing the precision with which she can manipulate a client. She can be your daughter. She can be your secretary. She can be your lover. And she can bring you to orgasm like nobody’s business.

The funny thing is, it’s not too far off from what Seyfried already does. Her last film was the weepie Dear John; her next, the lovey-dovey-looking Letters to Juliet; and she’ll tell those audiences exactly what they’ll want to hear. But right here, right now, she’s bound and determined to make you and me and Julianne Moore and Liam Neeson breathe a little heavier as she spins her stories of seduction.

Let me regress a bit: Moore thinks that Neeson is cheating on her and hires Seyfried to seduce him and report back. And the more that Seyfried talks about how heavy the petting and how erotic the climax, the more that Moore rubs her legs and bites her lip and loves vicariously through her. She gets off on hearing how Liam Neeson gets off, and how Amanda Seyfried can bring pleasure to him that Moore no longer can.

Julianne is essentially playing the audience surrogate in this tawdry little melodrama, and Seyfried is doing what she’s always been paid to do: telling us stories that we can’t experience for ourselves. Given Egoyan’s one-time knack for non-linear storytelling (it’s become more of a crutch lately) and fondness for deceit, such a straightforward affair invites a meta-contextual reading, some excuse for cranking out a Fatal Attraction knock-off like this.

He shoots it with a straight face, letting Toronto play Toronto and having the Stewart family live in one of those catalog-worthy homes that has more windows than walls (all the better to reveal secrets with) and just enough doors to slam dramatically (I like that Moore’s office has a see-through door - you can slam your door and play voyeur too!). The entire ensemble plays it with a straight face, even the lesbian antics, and hey, why wouldn’t they? These are Oscar nominees after all.

This is what we’ve paid to see: not just soft-core shenanigans, but soft-core shenanigans with actors of some class. And the woman behind me, she gets to go tut-tut-tut every time someone does something naughty (which is often). And the guy in front of me, he gets to slump down a bit once Moore and Seyfried lock lips (often enough).

Every movie is an exercise in manipulation. Many would accuse Egoyan’s films of late to be more akin of masturbation. At least this time, I’d like to think that the feeling is mutual.

William Goss lives in Orlando, Florida. But don’t hold that against him.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



How to Train Your Dragon Review | The World Loves a Good Box Office Disaster | Let's All Point and Laugh









Comments

I got fooled into watching "Exotica." I've been done with Egoyan ever since. Plenty of places on the Net to see girls kiss ... er, so I've heard.

Posted by: , at March 29, 2010 4:37 PM

Bound for the 21st century, perhaps? They missed the boat by not stunt-casting Jennifer Tilly.

Posted by: sansho1 at March 29, 2010 4:40 PM

Amanda Seyfriend and Julianne Moore lesbian antics?

I can tell you that won't be getting a limited release in my pants!

HAR HAR HAR!

Posted by: D-Day at March 29, 2010 4:41 PM

I often read Pajiba while passively sitting in on conference calls. Every once in a while, just to spice things up, I'll pick a few words from a review and try to figure out how to weave them into my portion of a presentation.
I just used the folowing two phrases:

"That data view is nothing more than a series of soft-core, non-linear images"

and

"We should steer away from inviting a meta-contextual reading"

No lie. They think I'm a bloody genious.

Posted by: courtney at March 29, 2010 4:47 PM

*psssst: courtney, luv, it's "genius"*

*ahem* No, sir, I wasn't whispering to courtney, I was just contextualizing the recalibrated parameters in a non-normalizing ultra-linear feedback loop for the next Quality Management (TM) actualization-skills role-playing exercise.

No, sir, of course you wouldn't understand a whit of that if you haven't been through the training.

Posted by: , at March 29, 2010 4:57 PM

I'm not getting much of a read on what you thought of this William - other than manipulated. I mean, was it in a way you appreciated or not?

Posted by: Cindy at March 29, 2010 4:58 PM

I got a cheesy kick out of it, yeah.

Posted by: William Goss at March 29, 2010 4:59 PM

*genius* - I could lie and say it was an intentional slip, but, alas, just a typo...

Posted by: courtney at March 29, 2010 5:00 PM

So...it's unrealistic?

It has hot chicks kissing?

Ahhhhh. Hollywood. You fail to disappoint...

Posted by: DeistBrawler at March 29, 2010 5:09 PM

Wow. I could have sworn I was wearing pants at the beginning of the review...

Posted by: esme at March 29, 2010 5:13 PM

Dear esme,

If you're going to continue to leave us in a damp, balled-up pile underneath your computer desk, may we suggest short to medium length skirts?

Signed,
Your Pants

Posted by: D-Day at March 29, 2010 5:26 PM

I agree with Cindy; I'm not sure what you actually thought of the film, William. I'm assuming you didn't like it, but were the performances any good?

I can take or leave Seyfried but I was curious to see if she could pull this off.

Posted by: Brie at March 29, 2010 5:38 PM

Kudos, Egoyan and writer Erin Cressida Wilson, for providing one of the unlikeliest sex scenes I ever thought I'd have to see.

Posted by: whatBENwatches at March 29, 2010 6:07 PM

You had me at Julianne Moore...lesbian antics.

I sat through Freedomland for her. That's called being a fan.

Posted by: Robert at March 29, 2010 6:21 PM

Err... I believe I saw this movie several years ago, called Nathalie... and though I have yet to see this one to find out if the twist at the end is the same, the premise of 'suspicious wife hires prostitute to knock boots with husband and report back' is very familiar. The delightful title character was played by Emmanuelle Béart. 'Nuff said?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0348853/

Posted by: Goldie at March 29, 2010 6:22 PM

My mother was a tut tutter at movies, it drove me insane. I made the mistake of taking her to see Raging Bull without finding out what it was about first. Dear god.

Posted by: snapnhiss at March 29, 2010 7:08 PM

Goldie, Chloe is a remake of Nathalie. Legitimately.

Posted by: Robert at March 29, 2010 7:37 PM

I'm pretty sure that's not the kind of thing where the concept of "enough" really applies.

Posted by: Tracer Bullet at March 29, 2010 8:01 PM

Robert, I'm aware of it being a remake. What I'm ignorant of is why that is a good thing.

Posted by: Goldie at March 29, 2010 8:35 PM

Dang, cheesy? Liam and Julianne and Amanda are cheesy?

I guess I'll really have to go to see if I can understand.

Posted by: Cindy at March 29, 2010 8:37 PM

this is one of those movies I'm excited for whole months to see,then when it comes out-I read the reviews,and it turns out nowhere near as incredible as I thought-all the anticipation dissipates just like that,and suddenly I just can't be bothered.

Amanda Seyfried as a fatal seductress is just one phase she has to go through,in a few years I expect she'll be doing more off-kilter,controversial stuff.

Posted by: evan at March 29, 2010 9:23 PM

It moved.

Posted by: superasente at March 29, 2010 9:38 PM

You can never win when someone presents sarcasm for their main defense of why something has to be bad. Ever.

Posted by: Robert at March 30, 2010 5:43 PM

You're my kind of guy, D-Day.

Posted by: Trey_Shacksit at March 31, 2010 12:56 AM

The funny thing is, it’s not too far off from what Seyfried already does.

I laughed so hard, I spat out some bits of a half-chewed corny....good timing, Mr. Goss!

Posted by: Zean-Chris at June 8, 2010 8:51 AM

the skinematography was aMAZing. seriously though, they spent a LOT of time lighting that shit.

Posted by: HappyGobo at August 23, 2010 12:57 AM

Every frame was like, a paintin' an shit. The one shot that was just coverage stood out to me so much I thought he was trying to make some sort of point with how blah it was.

Posted by: HappyGobo at August 23, 2010 12:58 AM