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.

Remade by Atom Egoyan as "Chloe" with Julianne Moore and Liam Neeson in the Fanny Ardant and Gerard Depardieu roles and minxy little Amanda Seyfried in the Emmanuelle Beart part, "Nathalie" is a very French tale of amour fou. It's a thriller of sorts, though the thrills tend to be of the erotic and psychological kind rather than the more hands-on approach we might expect from something...well, less French while the material feels overly familiar even if you haven't seen the remake. Fundamentally it's a woman's picture; the director is Anne Fontaine but she doesn't make the material exciting. Ardant is so glacial it's no wonder Depardieu strays and Depardieu is such an unsmilingly drab slab of meat it's surprising he gets as much sex as he claims to. Only Beart livens up proceedings as the pert little hooker Ardant hires to seduce hubbie Depardieu in revenge for a casual fling.

I watched this movie in theaters until 2005 although the movie was released in 2003. I didn't regret because the wait was worth.I think the plot and events are oriented for a mature audience; specifically for married couples who are passing hard times.The character of Natalie (or Nathalie X as subtitled here in México) is sexy, intriguing, and somewhat evil. She's a woman that may fool everyone with her lies and poses. Everything in the movie will deal with him as she will play angel and devil at the same time with the couple.The ending will leave everyone satisfied as it's an unexpected plot twist.I can recommend this movie for anyone who is looking for intelligent movies with mature situations. Those kind of situations that you may think never happen but that there's a possibility for them to come true...

I've seen this movie on TV some days ago. I knew a little about the plot from some cinema advertisement but had no clue about the end. So I was positively surprised by it. Usually the ménage à trois ends tragically, but here the viewer's imagination may to some extension finish the story individually. I had read bad comments about this movie in the French press and while watching it myself I really wondered what for? Two of France's most popular actresses and a typical French topic is obviously not enough to satisfy the critics nowadays. OK, the descriptions of sex which actually had not taken place at all seem a bit too long and too monotonous in the beginning, but after having seen the complete movie the viewer should have understood the meaning of that this kind of telling about fictional sex only serves to keep Catherine's attention as long as possible. If the stories would have been too good and exiting she might have tried to explore her new insights at once and by this Catherine would have stopped her deal with "Nathalie" too soon. I was most fascinated by the actresses' capability of shaping such a tension concerning their relation ship on the screen. It becomes clear quite soon that there's more in between these two women than just a client-customer deal but you never know who will take the next step. Fanny Ardant's facial expression for desire is legendary, just have a look at her in "Eight women". If there's somebody who knows to seduce convincingly on the screen, it's her. This movie may have been designed more for TV-broadcasting than in cinemas, but it's a nice piece of erotic entertainment.