Love and Other Drugs

(112 min, 2010)
Director: Edward Zwick
Writers: Charles Randolph (screenplay), Edward Zwick (screenplay),
Stars: Jake Gyllenhaal, Anne Hathaway and Judy Greer

Sex over substance

Maggie (Anne Hathaway) is an alluring free spirit who won't let anyone - or anything - tie her down. But she meets her match in Jamie (Jake Gyllenhaal), whose relentless and nearly infallible charm serve him well with the ladies and in the cutthroat world of pharmaceutical sales. Maggie and Jamie's evolving relationship takes them both by surprise, as they find themselves under the influence of the ultimate drug: love.

Ah, how I loved the 90s. The time when MTV actually played good music, when Johnny Depp wasn't the object of incisive salivation of 13 year-old girls, when actual good singers were considered to be good singers, not plastic platinum blondes and when “Friends” were on TV. So the beginning of “Love and other drugs”, set in 1996 when we hear “"Two Princes" in the background started off promising. Unfortunately, it was all downhill from that moment.

There are two things that annoy the living hell out of me when I watch comedies – when it's not funny and you can clearly see when director wanted you too laugh, it was just too lame of attempt to succeed and when you are bored so much you split your focus and start doing something else. During this particular movie I actually started feeding my virtual cat slash dog on Facebook. That's how bored I was.

The biggest problem is that you just don't care. The characters, main characters that is, are likeable but their story is not interesting enough. Maggie has Parkinson's disease and she immerses herself into empty sex and helping older people get medication. Jamie is a guy who also loves empty sex and works for pharmaceutical company. So the two, as you can imagine, meet in doctors office. Maggie hits Jaime with her bag because he saw her breasts, he calls her few days later, they meet, they have sex and so it goes. Maggie doesn't want anything serious, Jaime is good with that, but over time, surprise, surprise! He falls for her.

The first part of the movie is borderline watchable with some funny moments and lovely nudity, which I gathered actually required preparations - in designing the sex scenes, director Edward Zwick had the principals watch romantic comedies and sexually charged films (everything from "Pillow Talk" to "9 Songs" to "Last Tango In Paris") and talk about what turned them on. Then some of those shots and ideas were incorporated into the making of. It seems more effort was put into sex scenes than in actual script. But kudos to the cast and crew for this – actual nudity is hard to come across in movies nowadays, where producers frantically try to cover actors with clothes to get PG-13 ratings and earn more money. I'm talking to you people, who had the audacity to serve us this ridiculous “love scene” in “Public Enemies” where Depp and Cotilliard roll over bed in their clothes. If you don't have the guts to show love or sex don't prolong already mind numbingly boring movie with something like this. You actually made me add one point to “Love and other drugs” for not being ridiculous in at least that department.

It is only in a world where we have to see scenes like before mentioned “Public enemies” where the nudity in “Love and other drugs” can cause scandal. And it did. Hold your horses, people – it's over hyped. For a Hollywood movie it's a lot, but it's actually tasteful. If there is anything good about this film it's the approach towards showing love scenes and the main performances.

Gyllenhaal is very good as charming young man who is on a road to success and Hathaway is excellent as a girl struggling with serious illness. He is attractive, she is pretty. They are adorable and it's only because of casting we have sympathy for Jaime and Maggie – after all he is playboy who uses girls for his own benefit and she is selfish and acts heartless. When they have their casual encounters there is a lot of chemistry, but when movie tries to turn into something serious, it's not believable. We don't believe that they love each other. It's only the script's fault. Whoever wrote this should be publicly whipped, actually. Why go the conventional way? Why try to make us believe people who don't care for love fell pray to it? Why can't a woman just have sex with whoever she wants and why can't a guy just score girls without meeting the one to spend his life with? The script of this movie borders on science fiction. Some people just aren't made for chasing after their “love”.

In addition to being a mess the movie also has wasted potential – there are some great scenes and lines, but overall the experience of watching “Love and other drugs” is extremely tiring. I think the only people who would enjoy this movie are fans of Gyllenhaal and Hathaway. But honestly, if you wanna see them both naked just watch “Brokeback Mountain” again. Don't waste time with the movie, which own makers didn't know what they want to accomplish with.

46/100

Read More

Crazy, Stupid, Love.

(118 min, 2011)
Plot: Cal (Steve Carell) and Emily (Julianne Moore) have the perfect life together living the American dream... until Emily asks for a divorce. Now Cal, Mr Husband, has to navigate the single scene with a little help from his professional bachelor friend Jacob Palmer (Ryan Gosling).
Directors: Glenn Ficarra, John Requa
Writer: Dan Fogelman
Stars: Steve Carell, Ryan Gosling and Julianne Moore

The only one?

I'm gonna sell this movie to you right here right now. Ready? It's the best romantic comedy since “Love Actually”. It's not as good, it's not as funny, but in the sea of mediocre comedies with the obligatory presence of 1) never ending swearing 2) marijuana 3) forced pro-family messages in the end so that nobody would accuse the film of being cheap and stupid, “Crazy stupid love” which doesn't have any of those things is a breath of fresh air.

You may not like Steve Carell, the departure of whom from “The Office” I still mourn, but he is the heart of this movie. He is very funny, easy to relate to and nothing he says, even if it's dangerously close to being sentimental sounds cheap. The movie has very odd pairing – it has Carell, who appeared in silly comedies for years now and Ryan Gosling, who does serious dramas, mostly indie ones. I have seen most of Gosling's movies and I would never suspect him of being capable of being that hilarious. He is. He is the true star of the movie – from the funny one liners to the continuous looks of disgust he gives Carell as he looks at his wardrobe and behavior, Gosling steals every scene from professional comedian Carrel. He also has this way about him – you see him picking up all those ladies and you don't question it. He is the kind of guy you would love to go home with.

The movie would be fine just with those two major actors but no, it doesn't end there. Cal's unfaithful wife is played with a lot of charm and wit by Julianne Moore, her lover – remember that name – David Lindhagen – is played by Kevin Bacon and whenever Bacon is not playing villains, trust me, you have to check this out. The film also features sensation of recent year Emma Stone. Stone is one of those actress who may become new Meg Ryan – she is sexy, she is cute and even if she isn't drop dead gorgeous you know it's so easy to fall in love with her. Her character Hanna is a love interest for Jacob. It's so lovely to see actual chemistry between actors on screen and its so rare to see convincing chemistry between two characters, so different from each other. It happens here. Hanna isn't interested in Jacob and then she picks him up just to hook up with him because she is upset. She is unlike anyone Jacob met – she keeps talking, she doesn't hide the fact she is nervous and she openly makes fun of him. And the magic happens – those two, instead of having a one night stand, keep talking, laughing, connecting. As different as they are, it works, because of how well we got to know their characters and how odd and unfamiliar the scene plays out. Hanna does all the things she is not supposed to do. And that's what so special about her. I also have to give praise to amazing kissing scene between Stone and Gosling, genuinely passionate, lovely and breathtaking.

As “Love Actually' the movie has many love stories between characters somehow connected to each other. Cal's son is in love with his babysitter, Jessica. And Jessica is in love with Cal. Cal loves Emily, Jacob loves Hanna...all those stories will find it's hilarious finale in the film's most amusing sequence taking place in front of Cal's and Emily's home. The movie is a mix of funny, hilarious, romantic and poignant scenes. There is a wonderful scene near the end where Cal and Jacob talk to each other. Each one of them is motivated by different, but very powerful kind of love and each has to say and do things to another that will hurt. Carell and Gosling really put their hearts in this scene.

While the film has its obligatory cliché moments – the heartwarming speech near the end, happy ending, conflict and its resolution just before the movie is over, there are two genuinely surprising twists – one of witch includes Marisa Tomei who in just few scenes she is in shows her almost forgotten comedy talent. And the ending – while happy is very realistic. Is there hope for Cal and Emily? They laugh, they talk, they connect. And as long as they do that, there is no way love can just vanish.

90/100

Read More

Midnight in Paris

(94 min, 2011) 
Plot: A romantic comedy about a family traveling to the French capital for business. The party includes a young engaged couple forced to confront the illusion that a life different from their own is better.
Director: Woody Allen
Writer: Woody Allen
Stars: Owen Wilson, Rachel McAdams and Kathy Bates

From Paris with magic

“The unreal is more powerful than the real. Because nothing is as perfect as you can imagine it. Because its only intangible ideas, concepts, beliefs, fantasies that last. Stone crumbles. Wood rots. People, well, they die. But things as fragile as a thought, a dream, a legend, they can go on and on. If you can change the way people think. The way they see themselves. The way they see the world. You can change the way people live their lives. That's the only lasting thing you can create.”
― Chuck Palahniuk, Choke

I went to see “Midnight in Paris” because ever since I was fifteen I haven't missed any of Woody Allen's movies. I knew nothing about the film and I really didn't expect for it to have a fantasy element. I thought it's going to be typical Allen's movie with neurotics and amusing situations, witty dialogues and classy cinematography. Well, “Midnight in Paris” has all of that but in the fashion of “The purple rose of Cairo” it also has fantasy in it. It's not the best movie Allen made since “Hannah and her sisters” as many overeager reviewers seem to think, but it's certainly one of his best films.

Gil is about to marry Inez, but before they get married he goes on a trip with her and her parents to Paris. Gil is an aspiring writer and he instantly falls in love with the city. All he wants to do is walk in the rain and soak up the atmosphere. One evening he is walking around the town alone and when the clock hits midnight, much like for fairy tale's Cinderella, a carriage appears and magically takes him back to the 20's – Gil's favorite era. There he meets Scott Fitzgerald and his erratic wife Zelda, Ernest Hemingway and others. He also meets Picasso's muse Adriana and falls in love with her.

Gil and Inez are completely not right for each other – in fact Inez is the most annoying female in Allen's universe since Cristina Ricci's Amanda in “Anything else”. McAdams is doing really good job here – I was hoping somebody would slap her across the face. When she is asked why she wants to marry Gil she responds “he is smart and successful”. If a character responds like that, you know by the movie is over those two will not be together.

Owen Wilson plays Gil with a lot of humor and charm and may be the only one of two actors – along with Jason Biggs – who actually succeeded in channeling Woody Allen's typical main hero vibe without coming out as fake and annoying (as for example Kenneth Brannagh did in “Celebrity”). Not only is Wilson making Gil likable he is actually very funny. But acting standouts include Corey Stoll as Ernest Hemingway, and Adrien Brody, quite possibly the most memorable part of this movie, as rhinoceros obsessed Salavdor Dali. Marion Cotiliard delivers charming work as Adriana, muse of the painters, but I liked Alison Pill's Zelda Fitzgerald portrayal much more. I was a bit disappointed to see how few scenes Michael Sheen had, he was fantastic playing pseudo intellectual who annoys Gil and impresses Inez every step of the way. There are also three scenes featuring France's first lady herself Carla Bruni and we get to see Kathy Bates as Gertrude Stein.

The film opens differently than other movies by Allen – usually we immediately see black cards with credits on them, but this time they are preceded by 210 seconds of shots of Paris. That prologue manages to accomplish something that was done in, for example, “Before Sunset” - it makes you feel as if you were there. Also like the best of Allen's movies the film reveals a little bit of truth about each and every one of us – we will always idealize the past, the era we don't live in.But if we were there it would become our present and we would want to change it yet again. Why? Because life is one big chase and we are always looking for something better than we already have.

The movie is light as a cloud on Paris sky – it is filled with likable and sweet characters, funny situations and excellent dialogues. It also has a lovely ending - the kind that we saw in Allen's movies many times – all is well and thanks to one line spoken by lovely Lea Seydoux we see that there is such thing as magic. Even in our world, even in our time.

90/100

Read More

The Young Victoria

(105 min, 2009)
Director: Jean-Marc Vallée
Writer: Julian Fellowes
Stars: Emily Blunt, Rupert Friend and Paul Bettany 

The girl, the queen.

I'm in love with this movie. So rarely I get to see moving, touching, fascinating depiction of reign. "Golden Age" was a huge disappointment, "Alexander" sucked immensely. The only two recent good films about monarchy that come to my mind are "The Queen" and "Elizabeth". And this one is better than both of those, in style and emotions presented, at least.

From few years UK has one historical drama they push to Oscar race - "Pride and Prejudice", "The Dutchess", "Atonement". This time there is no Keira in the movie. And perhaps this is why I loved it. Each year I give my own oscars and I was almost sure I will reward Tilda Swinton for Julia. But no, the hell I won't. Emily Blunt's performance in this movie is masterful. I love this actress - she was superb in 'The Devil Wears Prada' and the best thing about 'Sunshine Cleaning'. In this film she reminded me a lot of young Kate Winslet, before she started her epic award-baiting - I mean lovely, lively and unforgettable Winslet from 'Sense and Sensibility' and 'Titanic'. Blunt's role in this movie is just so...beyond words. She plays the queen, but first of all she plays young woman - lively, filled with energy, frolic, proud and joyful. The scene where Victoria finds out about death of the king and the fact she is now the ruler is amazing - Blunt captures so many emotions in such short scene. The movie is worth seeing just to witness her performance, so peaceful and calm and yet complex and filled with passionate emotions.

I had no idea who was in the supporting cast prior to seeing this movie - it turned out to be very impressive ensemble - Jim Broadbent, Miranda Richardson, Mark Strong, Paul Bettany - great performance - and Rupert Friend, young soldier from 'Boy in striped pyjamas' as prince Albert, Victoria's love interest.

I cannot even express how much I loved seeing a royal couple in love. Usually when we see drama like this the princess always hates her husband and whines for 3/4 of the movie about her fate and usually has passionate, tragic romance with other man. Here the queen and prince were in love and Blunt and Friend had awesome chemistry. I cried like an idiot during the proposal scene.

The score for the movie is beautiful, I have to say in top 5 of that paticuliar year. The costumes are amazing. As for accuracy I believe some things - like Albert getting shot - were made more...spectacular than they really were. But the movie is not only beautiful, it is interesting, funny at times, contains wonderful performances and it holds viewer interest throughout the film. Finally a film, that I will definitely see more than once.

91/100

Read More

Time Traveler's Wife

(107 min, 2009)
Director: Robert Schwentke
Writers: Bruce Joel Rubin (screenplay), Audrey Niffenegger (novel)
Stars: Eric Bana, Rachel McAdams and Ron Livingston

You pull me through time

Confusion never stops, closing walls and ticking clocks
Come back and take you home, I could not stop, that you now know
Come out upon my seas, curse missed opportunities (am I),
A part of the cure, or am I part of the disease
You are
And nothing else compares,
Oh no nothing else compares,
And nothing else compares
You are
Home, home, where I wanted to go
- "Clocks", Coldplay

I love romances with a bit of science fiction in them, like Vanilla Sky, Solaris, The Fountain and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. All of those are in my top 25. Why? Well for one, those are exceptional movies. Also - I believe love is a miracle, something that cannot be explained. That kind of magic, deserves more magic around it, hence on screen it conquers death, it conquers science, it conquers time. That is not unusual, love can do all those things. It is the only thing, in fact, that can.

I was very hyped to see this film, the trailer looked incredibly emotional and I take so much sick pleasure in watching romances. The key to the success is to have chemistry between actors - lovely Rachel McAdams and very handsome Eric Bana definitely had a lot of it. Bana is playing a man who travels through time, back and forth, to see the woman he loves. The movie is incredibly bittersweet and has many powerful scenes, I even shed a tear on certain of them and that's a sign of a good love story.



The sci-fi element is basically a background to the story, it creates another obstacle in already difficult subject of love and all that drama. I am eternally confused about time travel stories so I didn't even try to understand how it works in this one, instead I just kept watching. After all, ultimately it's all about the feeling itself and the characters.

Bana is incredibly talented, I knew this since I saw “Troy” - actor who can create actual performance in a movie that bad is really a great one. And Bana can truly be anyone – cold soldier in “Black Hawk Down”, villain in “Star Trek” or cheating husband in “Funny People” - to this day I cannot believe the stuff that came out of his mouth in this one. Here he is lovestruck Henry and he fits the role perfectly. He seems like such a nice person so I prefer seeing him as hero not as a villain.

Rachel McAdams is too lucky – in recent years she appeared in truly wonderful movies - “The Notebook”, “State of Play” and of course “Sherlock Holmes” - even though I see her as huge miscast in that one, she still managed not to disappoint. And she is really lucky with the actors who play her love interests. Maybe that's why I cannot bring myself to like her. She is good and believable, but she lacks that magical spark which all great actress have. With Blanchett and Swinton I watch the movie because of them. I don't think it will ever be the case with McAdams for me.

The movie features perfect song for it “Clocks” by Coldplay and oh man, did they screw up on this one. The final meadow scene where Clare and Henry are running towards each other would have been so much more powerful if it had featured the climax of “Clocks”. I love music in movies, I often wonder which song would fit the scene best, the only thing that can make certain scenes more beautiful then they already are is a good choice of song. But even without it, it's still a lovely scene. And that great tragedy – In the novel the movie is based on, Claire spent her whole life waiting for Henry to see him again. And he knew precisely how many times he will get to see her. Not only was their life chopped to pieces, they kept waiting for more, knowing that there is a great chance they will never see each other again. Even if Henry tells her not to wait for him, she will. The only worse tragedy than falling in love is being unable to spend your life with the person you most want to.

The visual side of the movie fits the story well, the music by Mychael Danna, which was criticized by many, actually plays out nicely in the background. And the structure of the story is not very confusing – you won't be lost, even if like me – you don't know much about time travel.
The film is not as good as the ones I mentioned in the beginning, but it is very moving, beautiful and it features fine acting. What more to expect from love story?

70/100

Read More

August Rush

(114 min, 2007)
Director: Kirsten Sheridan
Writers: Nick Castle (screenplay), James V. Hart (screenplay)
Stars: Freddie Highmore, Keri Russell and Jonathan Rhys Meyers

Saccharine sounds

As a romantic, I love heartwarming movies and fairy tales - I believe in soapy stuff like soul mates, destiny, love at first sight - it's rare, but one can't be sure it doesn't happen. But I hate too much sugar and sweetness and there is such thing as too much sentimentality in a film - „August Rush” is an example of the sentimentality and sweet lovey dovey moments in such concentration it will make you nauseous, maybe even sick to the point you fast forward.

The story goes like that – Lyla, violinist and Louis, singer for rock band spend the night together and fall in love. The boy is not right for her according to her dad, so their ways part. But a child is born some time later and because of lies and intrigue Lyla doesn't know it is alive. 11 years later that child uses music to find his parents.

The child, named Evan has a wondrous music gift and can create symphonies out of nowhere – too bad that, except for the last few moments in the movie, those symphonies of his sounded more like irritating noise to me. I never thought I'm going to say that but „The Soloist” puts this movie to shame in this area. And „The Soloist” is an awful movie. Plus the amazing gift to create music subplot doesn't even work here - it's too absurd. When you are watching a movie like this you are supposed to automatically buy the things you see. When I was watching "Perfume" I didn't have to wonder why Grenouille had this amazing gift of hightened scent, I just kept watching the movie without any "but how?". Here not only I couldn't listen to that "music" without cringing, its origin - which basically was, what? God, magic, unicorns and rainbows? - puzzled me throughout the film.



To make matters worse the kid is played by Freddie Highmore, whom I can't stand. The kid apparently impressed Johnny Depp because after they worked in „Finding Neverland” Depp recommended him for „Charlie and the Chocolate Factory”. Why, I can't understand. He is not awful. but he is so whiny and acts so silly I really can't care for him enough to stare at his actions for 120 minutes. Haley Joel Osment used to bug me too, but not to this level.

I have no problem with fairytale elements, but somewhere around the time when Robin Williams appears, he begins to ruin the movie. The Lyla/Louis story is fantastic to watch, but halfway through the film I didn't care about the kid and what is going on around him. Williams's awful performance was so annoying it reminded me of those creepy old people from each part of „Home Alone” and brought the, at first, magical movie to the level of Disney's television movies played on TV on Sunday's afternoon. I'm reading Williams was inspired by Bono during creating that character, well, in that case If I were Bono I'd sue. Why was he in the movie? Because every time kids and fairy tales are involved Williams just has to be on screen?

And about that sentimentality – that is the movie you can't understand, dissect – you have to feel its mood and take a leap of faith. You have to get in this fragile, amazing mood when you sense everything is possible. Too bad the cluster, the noise and awful scenes with Williams snap you out of this illusion, brutally. The movie is too uneven to be good. There are really good scenes, only to be followed by awful ones, the screenplay seems like a raw version which nobody corrected and director Kirsten Sheridan's work is so lousy no wonder she didn't direct any more movies since “August Rush”.

It is a shame, a big shame because the scenes with Lyla and Louis, then Lyla's frantic effort to find her son and Louis's search for Lyla are wonderful. Now, had the movie only focused on them, it would easily get at least 8 stars from me. I can't believe Jonathan Rhys Meyers played nice guy. He always seems very arrogant to me and his performances proved that – he is always so good playing jerks, sending the women he lusts over to get their head cut off or shooting them with huge shotgun himself. Here he is very sweet and even vulnerable - I was stunned. And Keri Russel who played sweet violinist Lyla was very good too – her angelic looks fit the character and she was convincing plus she had few really good scenes.

The music in the movie is altogether messy but has some good moments – I forgot how well Meyers can sing – after all he sung in „Velvet Goldmine” which I love, but it is always astonishing to me when I watch the movie and suddenly I hear actors singing better than most vocalists nowadays.

"August Rush"is worth watching for Lyla/Louis story, some decent songs and quite good final sequence, which, ironically is not sweet enough – no hugs? No kisses? I have to admit - that is one peculiar movie, but most of all it's very overrated.

60/100

Read More

Chloe

(96 min, 2009)
Plot: A doctor hires an escort to seduce her husband, whom she suspects of cheating, though unforeseen events put the family in danger.
Director: Atom Egoyan
Writers: Erin Cressida Wilson (screenplay), Anne Fontaine (motion picture "Nathalie")
Stars: Julianne Moore, Amanda Seyfried and Liam Neeson
(spoilers)

Hairpin fiasco

This movie had a potential but one of the worst casting decisions I've seen blew it. That and in addition implausible script, but sometimes the actors are so good, you try hard not to notice how silly the story really is. However, Amanda Seyfried has managed to screw up so badly, even actors like Liam Neeson and Julianne Moore at their finest cannot rescue „Chloe”.

I have no idea who thought casting Seyfried as exclusive hooker would be a good idea. She doesn't have the looks for it. You know, how the reviewers write things like „an actress of unique beauty” when they don't wanna say someone is far from being beautiful? Yeah, that's the case. She has nice body and very pretty hair, but out of thousands of hookers in the world the idea that this one would actually get clients is just preposterous. Bulging eyes don't make her interesting. But that's not the worst - she acts slutty, she behaves in a vulgar way, common way, without giving viewer a hint of knowledge that she would actually be capable of making a man desire her. She was supposed to be mysterious and fascinating, instead that whole performance is forced and laughable. To call her 'whorish' in this film would be a compliment, I find the word itself to have more class than her performance. When trailer triumphantly says 'and Amanda Seyfried as Chloe” I guess it was supposed to drag all the „Mamma Mia” fans to the theater. Horrible, horrible casting. I mean are we really in such deep crisis that we don't have beautiful young actress? Is Scarlett and Angelina all we got? Amanda should stick to the roles like her work in “Big Love” and “Jennifer's Body”. This is, well, out of her league.

It is almost insulting for me as a movie fan, that Liam Neeson and Julianne where in the same movie with Seyfried. They are both outstanding – from what I gathered “Chloe” shooting took place at the same time Neeson's wife passed away. He took a break and then came back to finish his performance in two days – this absolutely shocked me. He really is a tremendous actor to be able to create such a great performance in the time of enormous emotional distress, in the movie that mediocre. Moore is shining powerfully in the film - I cannot even give you the one particular scene that I find the best in terms of her acting – the whole performance is very convincing and consistent.

The story is absurd – wife is suspecting that her husband is cheating on her, so she pays money to the prostitute, in order for her to seduce him. Now, dear reader, you probably think what I was “she wants evidence, perhaps to make a killing in a divorce!”. No! She doesn't. All she wants, and now prepare for it, is to know what excites her husband, 'cause she misses him. If that's not pathetic, then I don't know what is. Anyways, the hooker lies, the wife cheats, the husband forgives, the idiotic ending follows. Cliché is chasing after cliché.

There is however a lesbian love scene, which I am sure will be reason good enough for many to watch it. Given that I have not seen many scenes like that, I am not gonna judge it, but words of admiration for both actress are required.  No body doubles were used, which is courageous, especially for Moore, who after all is 50 years old and still so beautiful, that I have no idea how would any man prefer slutty little 20 year old over her.

The movie has great atmosphere, the interiors, the clubs, the glasshouse, the cafes – it's all very cool and backed up with Mychael Danna's music – he is nowhere near of being a great composer, but it all fits nicely. However the best thing about the movie is that Chloe aggressively promotes band called Raised by Swans, of which two songs are featured in the movie. That band's two albums are so much better than this film.
If you want to see good erotic thriller you will not be happy with "Chloe", the climate is there, the characters are there, but there are also too many distractions of poor quality. Still, fans of Neeson and Moore will be very happy, if they won't let the anger of those two terrific actors staring in the movie like that take over them.

If only they found someone interesting to play Chloe and change the screenplay a little that could really be a good movie.

52/100

Read More