Toronto Escorts In The News!

The movie opens on a comely young prostitute, Chloe (Amanda Seyfried), while she dresses for a date and describes her ability to morph into teacher, daughter or Playboy pinup, depending on her clients’ wishes. She plies her trade in Toronto’s upscale Yorkville neighbourhood, where Catherine Stewart (Julianne Moore) works as a gynecologist. First glimpsed giving a pelvic exam, Catherine is brisk and businesslike, not exactly oozing passion when she flatly describes an orgasm as “a series of muscle contractions.”
…
Julianne Moore is the perfect actor to carry this material, and in Chloe’s gripping first hour, she wrings all the seriousness she can from an uneven script. When she confides to the call girl, “I love his hands. They used to grab me everywhere. It used to be that way. I used to be younger,” it recalls her identity crises in Todd Haynes’ Safe and Far From Heaven. Glancing at her own reflection in powder-room mirrors, she suggests a model wife going bonkers from all the upper-class ennui. Whatever else is happening in Chloe, Moore gives great melodrama.

See the full article from “CBC.ca”

As written by Wilson and directed by Atom Egoyan, “Chloe” becomes a rueful examination of middle-aged insecurity and longing. It’s the story of an intelligent professional woman (Julianne Moore) who feels herself circling the drain as she approaches 50, alienated from her snotty teenage son and emotionally abandoned by her preoccupied husband (Liam Neeson).
When confronted with persuasive evidence of her husband’s infidelity, she hires a call girl, Chloe (Amanda Seyfried), to tempt him into an affair. Her hope is that the husband will resist Chloe’s advances and prove himself trustworthy, but instead Chloe starts coming back with increasingly lurid stories of the husband’s behavior. And though the wife doesn’t want to hear it, she can’t close her ears to it, either, and so she keeps meeting Chloe, and keeps paying her, and keeps raising the stakes.

See the full article from “San Francisco Chronicle”

Review: ‘Chloe’ spins into a cliche
March 25, 2010, 4:09PM
It’s clear from the first scenes of “Chloe” that spouses Catherine (Julianne Moore) and David Stewart (Liam Neeson) have differing outlooks on sex and love. She’s a successful Toronto gynecologist whom we first see explaining sexual pleasure to a patient in clinical, anatomical terms, while our initial glimpse of him is as he delivers a lecture on the erotic conquests of “Don Giovanni.” When Catherine suspects David of being an unfaithful Don Juan himself, she hires a prostitute, Chloe (Amanda Seyfried), to test her husband’s fidelity.
The first hour or so of Atom Egoyan’s film is the sort of engaging, intellectual stuff we’ve come to expect from the Canadian art house auteur, despite the unusual presence of big-name Hollywood stars. But the love-versus-lust debate eventually gives way to a standard thriller plot, albeit a glossy, sexy one, as Chloe turns out to be the sort of psycho who gives high-class hookers a bad name.

See the full article from “OregonLive.com”

Part of the filmmaker’s art is to enhance the settings, he said, describing how an arch in Yorkville became a romantic backdrop.
“The archway is not something you notice normally, but if you put a long lens on it and you light it a certain way, it becomes like the Arc de Triomphe,” he said.
“It’s a question of looking at what it is in the energy of these places that you find attractive and amplifying it.”
In the film, Moore plays a woman who has suspicions about her husband’s fidelity and her own importance in his life.
“She decides to test this out in a very peculiar way. She hires a young prostitute to flirt with him and report back to her as to how open he is,” Egoyan said.

See the full article from “CBC.ca”

The story, as in the original, opens with Catherine (Julianne Moore) throwing a surprise birthday party for her husband, David (Liam Neeson), who is out of town on business. But he misses his flight home, or so he claims. A message on his cellphone suggests otherwise, and when Catherine asks him about it, he repeats that all that happened was a missed flight. “It was neither intentional nor a mistake.” But what does that leave, aside from a suspicious spouse?
Catherine chances upon a high-class prostitute, which seems to be one of the perks of working in Yorkville; you don’t see women like Chloe outside the Harvey’s at Jarvis and Gerrard. She’s played by Amanda Seyfried (Mamma Mia!, Jennifer’s Body), an actress whose preternatural good looks owe much to the fact that her eyes are weirdly far apart. Catherine makes her a proposition: Present herself to David, see what he does, and report back. “Lots of my clients are married,” Chloe assures her. “He’s not the client,” Catherine corrects sharply.

See the full article from “Kelowna.com”

Egoyan and screenwriter Erin Cressida Wilson are using the premise to examine the nature of betrayal and the power of the imagination to fill in the blanks, a deep well the filmmaker has dipped into many times. The specific template has been given them by the 2003 French film “Nathalie,” with French writer-director Anne Fontaine having a hand in “Chloe’s” adaptation. Still, what in Paris seems both intelligent and erotic, in the States seems just seedy.
All that sex and need add up to a whole lot of trouble, but unlike the filmmaker’s critically acclaimed 1994 film, “Exotica,” where the cerebral intersected with lust and longing in a strip club so that guilt, obsession and responsibility as well as Mia Kirshner’s young body were laid bare, “Chloe” stops short. The result is a sort of story interruptus, the thematic possibilities of the sexual balance of power in relationships teased but never to a satisfactory conclusion.

See the full article from “Los Angeles Times”

The story is a familiar one. Dr. Catherine Stewart (Julianne Moore) is a classy, professional gynecologist who loves her husband David (Liam Neeson). They have an ambitious son (Max Thieriot) who excels in school and music, and a wonderful home just outside of New York. The only problem is that intimacy has left their home — or at least, mom and dad’s bedroom — and Catherine believes that her college professor husband is getting too close with some of his young students. That’s when she meets Chloe (Amanda Seyfried), a beautiful young call girl whose services she uses to lure in her husband and see if he is stepping out on her. At first, all goes as planned. But it isn’t long before the relationship between Chloe and David — and for that matter, the relationship between Chloe and Catherine — spins out of control in ways that Catherine never could have imagined. All of the sudden, the game is changed, and everyone is playing by Chloe’s rules.

See the full article from “Film School Rejects (blog)”

… Chloe” — This sex thriller from director Atom Egoyan is a pure guilty pleasure, if you take away that part about pleasure. The devoted cast led by Julianne Moore, Liam Neeson and Amanda Seyfried really burrows into the roles, but the intense performances cannot conceal the fact that these characters are shallow narcissists at their best and outright crazy people at their worst. This marital story of infidelity, deceit and obsession is not much more absurd than “Fatal Attraction,” one of the great guilty pleasures in screen history. Yet the movie rings false from the moment suspicious wife Moore, convinced husband Neeson is cheating on her, hires call girl Seyfried to push the man’s buttons and see if it’s true. The characters are so abnormal and their situation so contrived that it’s impossible to sit back and enjoy the train wreck the way you can revel in Glenn Close murderously popping out of that bathtub one last time in “Fatal Attraction.” R for strong sexual content including graphic dialogue, nudity and language. 96 minutes. Two stars out of four.

See the full article from “San Francisco Chronicle”

Comfort sometimes leads to taking those you love for granted while the passion slips away. When Catherine suspects David of infidelity, she does what any normal woman would do — hire a 25-year-old hooker to test her 58-year-old husband’s loyalty.
Unfortunately, no, this isn’t a comedy, at least not intentionally. It’s a remake of “Nathalie,” a 2003 French drama starring Gérard Depardieu. Both films are absurd and predictable, borrowing ideas from better stories and doing nothing original with them.
In this version, Amanda Seyfried plays the title character, a mysteriously sly and seductive call girl whose descriptions of her encounters with David make Catherine sick with jealousy, and maybe a little turned on. But when Chloe continues her pursuit long after Catherine ends their business deal, the real object of Chloe’s desire becomes clear.

See the full article from “Columbia Daily Tribune”

Egoyan also deftly establishes Catherine’s estrangement from her surly teenage son Michael (Max Thieriot), who openly defies her by allowing his girlfriend to spend the night in his room. Moore makes palpable Catherine’s frustration at feeling like a stranger in her own house and being unable to explain how things deteriorated so badly. The actress earns our sympathy, so we tolerate Chloe for a while as this intelligent, astute woman embarks on an increasingly contrived series of escapades, instead of simply confronting her husband with what she knows. But the patience runs out.
Seyfried, all grown up (seriously) from Mamma Mia!, does what she can with the role of the ethereal prostitute, hinting at potential malice — even madness — beneath her angelic face. But as the movie goes on, the character makes less and less sense, and Egoyan resorts to some cheap business involving an ornate hairpin that is, quite frankly, beneath him. What has happened to this smart director’s ear for resonant, compelling stories? Taking a cue from its eponymous character, Chloe skillfully seduces you, then leaves you feeling hollow and a little used.

See the full article from “MiamiHerald.com”