shockumentarist 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.

billcr12 I must confess that I will watch anything with Emmanuelle Beart in it. Her first role of note was in Manon of the Spring as a shepherdess. A great movie featuring the young and beautiful Beart bathing nude at a spring. Here she is Nathalie, a prostitute hired by a woman to pose as a college student and seduce her philandering husband. The wife, Catherine(Fanny Ardent) hears a phone message from a girl sounding a bit to friendly to her man, Bernard(Gerard Depardieu). She pays Nathalie for the hook up and then meets with her after each encounter and has her describe in graphic detail, what Bernard did. Catherine is a cold woman who seems to get off in a voyeuristic way while listening to the sexual play by play of Nathalie and her soul mate. It is all very strange but Depardieu and Beart make it worthwhile as an interesting curiosity.

opusv5 This film was well-acted, with good spare dialogue and well-shot scenes (example: Béart's pole-dancing in the red-lit club was subtle but effective). The premise may or may not be realistic, but the French have a fairly wide, non-judgmental attitude to sex and the idea of a wife wanting to know details of her husband's extra-marital affair is believable in context. The fact that Marlene-Nathalie turns out to have been lying to Ardant about her encounters with Depardieu was guessable halfway through the film. The interesting aspect was the erotic chemistry, subtle but there, between Ardent and Béart. That they couple at the end seems a natural conclusion to that dynamic. Note: Béart's dialogue when detailing those non-existing trysts between her and Depardieu was written by Nelly Arcan, a Quebeçoise writer who had once been an escort-and written a book about it.

gradyharp The French have a way with steamy films that makes the rest of the cinematic world seem bland in comparison. NATHALIE is fine case in point. Based on an idea by Philippe Blasband and transformed into a superb screenplay by Jacques Fieschi, François-Olivier Rousseau and the director Anne Fontaine, this incredibly well acted, subtle, understated film explores the many facets of adultery - from the woman's point of view. The result is a suspenseful, erotic, intelligent film that provides an opportunity for three of France's greatest actors to demonstrate their credentials.Catherine (the still very beautiful and gifted Fanny Ardant) is a gynecologist married to the successful Bernard (Gérard Depardieu in one of his more subtle roles) and they have a stay-at-home hippy son (Rodolphe Pauly) who goes about his life much the same as his parents: there is superficial companionship but little in depth relationship. The marriage seems satisfactory until Catherine suspects Bernard of having affairs, a fact that Bernard very honestly confesses to having: in his eyes the affairs are sexual dalliances that mean nothing. Catherine is shocked, attempts to gain some support from her insular but worldly mother (a fine Judith Magre) who tells Catherine it is a normal situation in older marriages.Catherine visits a bar, a private club for consignations, and there she meets Marlène (the extraordinary Emmanuelle Béart) and eventually buys Marlène's services as a prostitute to meet her husband and then tell her all about the encounters. It is agreed that Marlène will be known as 'Nathalie'. From this point on Catherine and Nathalie meet after Nathalie has encounters with Bernard and describes the acts of the encounters in vivid and lurid detail. Catherine is fascinated and continues to pay Nathalie for on going encounters and subsequent voyeuristic descriptions. Catherine even has a one-night stand of her own with bartender François (Wladimir Yordanoff) in an attempt to understand her husband's need for infidelity.Despite the setup of 'private investigator and prostitute detective' the two women become friends. When Catherine realizes she has enough evidence against Bernard to leave him there is a final encounter of the three (Catherine, Bernard, Nathalie) that brings the ingenious surprise ending - an ending to fine to share as it would spoil the film for viewers new to the story.Ardant is simply radiant as Catherine, playing the role of the victim wife of an adulterous husband with supreme dignity. Likewise Depardieu makes his Bernard so understated and profoundly honest that the conclusion in retrospect should have been suspected. Béart is at once wholly physical in her prostitute role yet maintains the inner core of a confused woman that keeps us on her side as she does her job. The production values are all first rate (except for some ragged editing) and the direction of Anne Fontaine is bristling with intrigue and wholly convincing in her development of this strange tale. Despite the dialogue being X-rated there is very little actual sex in this film: that makes it not only more powerful but as the ending is revealed adds to the solidity of the story. In French with English subtitles. Highly recommended for art film lovers. Grady Harp