This film, despite being filmed in 2003, looks like it's from the mid-90's compared to Chloe, which is just 6 years younger. Maybe that was the point - some films do that, removing anything contemporary, from references to technology, to give a film a dream-like, timeless feeling. I'm not sure this was the case, as there were both references to bands and places that played contemporary music.
Maybe the film just looks old because I saw it on DVD, versus a high resolution stream of Chloe which was sharp and crisp.
This film also employs some techniques from the 80s, such as scenes with a strong colored light (in this case, red), that was the dominant color in the picture.
This film is slower in pace than Chloe, more subtle and more convincing. It's a very talky film, leaving most to your imagination. It could've used some quick flashes to show Catherine's vivid imagination, but alas.
I'm surprised that Catherine did not ask for any proof from Nathalie, not any evidence that she's doing any work whatsoever.
Beart's surgical enhancements added to this picture. It didn't make her more beautiful, I believe she looks less attractive, but it works for this film. I can imagine Marlene/Nathalie getting plastic surgery.
I'm not sure how I feel about the lesbian scene. I felt that it was coming, but the fact that it didn't happen is an interesting direction. There's more gray area and subtlety in this film because of decisions like that. Would it have improved the picture? I'm not sure. It would've changed it a lot. This movie is about Catherine paying a girl to spy on her husband, but it ends up being psychotherapy and marriage counseling. Had there been a lesbian scene, it would be prostitution, the most expensive prostitute ever, dollars per minute, but prostitution nonetheless.
It would've changed the fundamental nature of the film - was Catherine's relationship with her husband cooling, were they drifting apart, not spending time together, not communicating, or was it just that she was sexually frustrated and all it took was a night with a female hooker to set her right? It could have worked with other actresses, but not these two. I'm just not getting that vibe from these two here.
The good thing is this film didn't overdo it and add some stupid thing like a murder to spice up the plot.
All in all, this is the original, Chloe is the worse cover version, but I give this version a 6.
Maybe the film just looks old because I saw it on DVD, versus a high resolution stream of Chloe which was sharp and crisp.
This film also employs some techniques from the 80s, such as scenes with a strong colored light (in this case, red), that was the dominant color in the picture.
This film is slower in pace than Chloe, more subtle and more convincing. It's a very talky film, leaving most to your imagination. It could've used some quick flashes to show Catherine's vivid imagination, but alas.
I'm surprised that Catherine did not ask for any proof from Nathalie, not any evidence that she's doing any work whatsoever.
Beart's surgical enhancements added to this picture. It didn't make her more beautiful, I believe she looks less attractive, but it works for this film. I can imagine Marlene/Nathalie getting plastic surgery.
I'm not sure how I feel about the lesbian scene. I felt that it was coming, but the fact that it didn't happen is an interesting direction. There's more gray area and subtlety in this film because of decisions like that. Would it have improved the picture? I'm not sure. It would've changed it a lot. This movie is about Catherine paying a girl to spy on her husband, but it ends up being psychotherapy and marriage counseling. Had there been a lesbian scene, it would be prostitution, the most expensive prostitute ever, dollars per minute, but prostitution nonetheless.
It would've changed the fundamental nature of the film - was Catherine's relationship with her husband cooling, were they drifting apart, not spending time together, not communicating, or was it just that she was sexually frustrated and all it took was a night with a female hooker to set her right? It could have worked with other actresses, but not these two. I'm just not getting that vibe from these two here.
The good thing is this film didn't overdo it and add some stupid thing like a murder to spice up the plot.
All in all, this is the original, Chloe is the worse cover version, but I give this version a 6.