Page 2 of 5
CHLOE Most films populated by Hollywood stars are generally launched stateside, but it nevertheless should come as no surprise that Chloe had already been making the European rounds. After all, American moviegoers aren't accustomed to seeing films in which the subject of sex is treated in an adult manner, so perhaps the studio determined that Yank audiences needed a few extra weeks to prepare for the experience. Chloe is still a tame affair compared to its counterparts over on the Continent, but at least it's neither juvenile nor prudish, two qualities that taint the vast majority of homegrown flicks. Director Atom Egoyan (Exotica) and scripter Erin Cressida Wilson (Secretary) are no strangers to combining carnal encounters with cerebral ruminations, and here their starting point is the longtime marriage of gynecologist Catherine Stewart (Julianne Moore) and professor David Stewart (Liam Neeson). With the passion and excitement long drained from their relationship, Catherine starts to wonder if David is having an affair with one of his students -- the signs are certainly there. She hires a wide-eyed escort named Chloe (Amanda Seyfried) to seduce her spouse and report back to her, but the good doctor is surprised to learn that the girl's graphic descriptions of their trysts are sexually arousing her. Is she excited by David's illicit activities, or is she turned on by Chloe herself? For a good while, Chloe hums along on the strength of its weighty themes, including the difficulties inherent in keeping a marriage invigorated, the ability of intelligent people to use words to blur others' perceptions of reality, and the manner in which pent-up desire can manifest itself in unexpected ways. It's a shame, then, that the film utterly collapses as it rounds third base. Chloe is a remake of the 2003 French flick Nathalie; I've never seen that picture, so I can't say whether the crippling choices presented here were made by Wilson or carried over from the source material. At any rate, what had worked as a bracing character study of an aging woman afraid of losing everything (Seyfried may essay the title role, but this is Moore's show all the way) lamentably turns into a mopey melodrama with an obvious plot twist, as well as a second-rate thriller in which complicated people suddenly become one-dimensional and the spirit of Fatal Attraction hovers over the entire production. But hey, at least we're spared the boiled bunny. **1/2
THE CRAZIES After a mysterious virus is accidentally unleashed on a small Iowa town and turns many of its inhabitants insane, the military arrives to quarantine the area and contain the threat. But it soon becomes clear that, to the unaffected humans, the soldiers are as hazardous to their health as their crazed neighbors. While this remake of George Romero's 1973 film is more smoothly realized than its predecessor, it's also been streamlined for mass consumption, removing all thorny sociopolitical subtext, avoiding a cruelly ironic conclusion (arguably the high point of the '73 model), and throwing in far too many cheap scares. The use of lowbrow shock effects (i.e. when someone suddenly jumps into the frame, or a loud noise suddenly fills the soundtrack; see The Wolfman for more examples) is a real shame, since the more effective moments suggest that director Breck Eisner could have built genuine suspense had he been given the chance: One character's encounter with an electric medical saw is both hair-raising and humorous, and an attack inside a car wash is effectively staged. More scenes like these would have truly goosed the proceedings, but as it stands, The Crazies is creatively too measured for its own good. **
Mobile
