Lovelace Reviews

To be honest, I wasn't really expecting much from this flick but since there was a decent cast involved, I thought I might as well check it out. I have to admit it, I haven't seen 'Deep Throat' which seemed to be like an interesting watch since it had such a huge cultural impact but, from what I gathered from this movie, is that it was actually rather lame, pretty much like most porn flicks. Coming back to our main feature, well, it wasn't really good, I'm afraid. First of all, the whole thing had a rather odd structure. Indeed, they first told everything from a rather neutral point of view, basically, the official version, and then they started all over again and told the whole story from Linda's point of view. But why? As a result, the first part felt rather pointless. Then, I'm not sure if I really cared about Linda's version and something with more nuances might have maybe worked better for me. Seriously, it must have been the first biopic I saw during which the main character had to take a polygraph test to show everyone that she was actually telling the truth. In my opinion, it shows how little confidence the makers had in this story and its main source. Eventually, no matter what really happened, it is just rather sad that Linda Lovelace first became the biggest porn star in the world, even an icon, and then, tried to turn everything around and became in the process the biggest anti-porn crusader that ever lived. Unfortunately, this movie completely failed to show this journey by telling the story from her point of view. Anyway, to conclude, in spite of its flaws, it was still a decent watch and I guess it is worth a look.

Sometimes I watch movies simply because actors that I like are in them; in the case of 'Lovelace', I happened to notice that Peter Sarsgaard was one of the stars, which prompted my decision to stream it on Netflix (I've enjoyed Sarsgaard in other roles, and I hadn't seen him in anything for awhile).

Otherwise, I doubt that a biopic about Linda Lovelace would have ever caught my attention. I've never seen 'Deep Throat' (the porn movie that made her famous, in what was apparently her only significant "role") and certainly don't have any desire to see it. Before watching 'Lovelace', I knew of both 'Deep Throat' and Lovelace herself by name only.

Well, now that I've seen this film, I know a little more about both -- at least, I know the version of Linda Lovelace's life that's presented in 'Lovelace' (which is based on Linda's autobiography "Ordeal". I guess that certain folks have questioned the authenticity of some of the events portrayed in the film; I'm not sure why, and I don't feel that compelled to look into the reasons.)

Most of 'Lovelace' centers on Linda's relationship with her abusive ex-husband, Chuck Traynor. The movie is split into two distinct segments. The first segment shows one account of Linda's life, starting with before she became a porn star -- in this account, we see her strained relationship with her parents, her early relationship with her "boyfriend" Traynor, and finally her experience making 'Deep Throat'. (After Linda marries Traynor, his true colors start to show; he manipulates her into making the porn film, telling her that it will help launch an acting career or somesuch).

If I'm not mistaken, in this first part of 'Lovelace', the "Deep Throat" scenes (and the "glamorous" parties and celebrity status that follow the famed... er, movie's release) are intended to show Linda's life as viewed from the eyes of "the public". Here, we also get a surface glimpse of Traynor -- it's established that he handles Linda's career, and hinted at that he's not the nicest of fellows. However, Traynor is never actually violent toward Linda in this part of the film; mostly, he just comes across as vaguely sleazy and rather controlling. Linda herself seems to more-or-less enjoy her time on 'Deep Throat' and her resulting fame.

It isn't until the second segment of 'Lovelace' that we witness the true extent of Traynor's abuse (with the two different accounts of Linda's ordeal explained via several "flash forward" scenes, in which Linda is seen taking a polygraph test -- where she confirms and elaborates on the abuse by Traynor detailed in her autobiography).

In this second -- and much darker -- half of the film, Traynor beats Linda, frequently holds a gun to her head, forces her into prostitution, and blatantly exploits her fame in various attempts to bring in more money (all for himself).

Linda, for her part, tries on several occasions to flee both Traynor and the porn industry -- but her attempts are futile. Until she finally gets through to an adult film producer (?), who helps her get away (he then gathers some goons to go surprise Traynor with his own beating. Which is shown in a brief scene that's not especially graphic but IS rather bizarre -- maybe because they use a belt, of all things, as their "weapon". I'm not sure if I expected a tire iron or what -- actually, I have ZERO knowledge of how porn-industry beatdowns work -- but the belt just seemed like an odd choice.)

Eventually, in the remaining scenes of 'Lovelace', we see Linda successfully leave the adult film world; it's also established (and, in some cases, briefly shown) that she marries a much nicer man, publishes her autobiography, reconciles with her estranged parents, and, finally, becomes an outspoken anti-porn advocate.

As you might expect, 'Lovelace' is rated 'R'; and it's certainly not a film for children (who I doubt would even be interested). The abuse scenes are pretty intense, and... well, it's a movie about a porn star.

However, for a movie about a porn star, 'Lovelace' doesn't exactly glorify pornography; in fact, the adult film industry is portrayed almost entirely throughout the movie as destructive and negative. On that note, I can easily envision a "cleaned-up" version of this movie airing one day on Lifetime (or some equivalent network geared toward women).

In case you might be wondering who stars in 'Lovelace' (other than Sarsgaard) -- Linda herself is played by Amanda Seyfried. Now, as far as I know, the only other movie that I've seen Seyfried in is 'Mean Girls'; and to give her credit, she's VERY different in this role -- enough so that I might not have even known she was the same actress if I didn't recognize her name. Again, I know next to nothing about the real Linda Lovelace; so I can't say how well Seyfried captures her mannerisms and such. However, I will say that Seyfried does a pretty good job of conveying a naive young woman trapped in an abusive relationship that she desperately wants to escape, but doesn't know how to begin doing so.

As for Sarsgaard -- I wouldn't call this his greatest performance ever; but it's definitely a different sort of role for him than I've seen in prior films. And for the most part, he's very effective. I hadn't heard of Chuck Traynor at all before watching 'Lovelace'; thus (as with Seyfriend's portrayal of Linda) I'm not sure how well Sarsgaard captures the real Traynor. But Sarsgaard convincingly portrays an insecure, bullying, and (above all) pathetic lowlife of an individual; and he's actually pretty scary in the abuse scenes.

Other actors who appear in the film include: Debi Mazar (it was nice to see her again); James Franco as "Hugh Hefner" (fortunately on both counts, his role is minor); Chloe Sevigny (in a blink-and-you'll-miss-it cameo; I did see it, but I didn't recognize Sevigny and didn't catch that it was her until the end credits); and Sharon Stone (whom I BEYOND didn't recognize as Lovelace's mother, so kudos for that -- although, performance-wise, Stone is probably the weakest in the film).

Overall, I'm not really sure how to rate 'Lovelace', although I'm granting it a (somewhat reluctant) two-and-a-half stars (or 5/10). It was more interesting than I expected, and the performances are pretty good; but it's hard to look past the fact that, in the end, 'Lovelace' is basically just a glorified Lifetime movie. (5/10)

An interesting subject and life that was put in the wrong hands. Poorly directed and edited but you could still appreciate some of the performances

So we get to see how the legendary porn movie Deepthroat was made starring a pretty amazing cast including Amanda Seyfried, Peter Sarsgaard, Sharon Stone (Although to me I couldn't actually tell it was her at until I saw the cast), Robert Patrick, Juno Temple, Chris Noth, Bobby Cannavale, Hank Azaria, Adam Brody, Chloe Sevigny, James Franco, and Wes Bentley. Amanda Seyfried is titular and jawdropping in this as well as showing how well she can act (even acting good pretending that she can't act in scenes where she is making Deepthroat). In fact the acting in this is generally on a high note except for maybe the addition of Eric Roberts. I didn't realize how traumatizing this point of Linda Lovelace's life was until I saw this movie. In fact I haven't even seen Deepthroat as I haven't had the time to hunt a copy down or find one online. This movie is pretty deep (pun intended) and it definitely strikes a few points. There is also a lot of boobage from Amanda Seyfried which is just enough to put an extra star or two on the rating. It is entertaining and keeps you interested, but it isn't really a masterpiece. Also I would avoid watching this with anyone as I think it would be kind of awkward. Check it out if you can it is worth a watch in my opinion especially if you have a crush on Ms. Seyfried.

It is a biographical drama of the number one adult movie star of the 70s, Linda Lovelace. The movie unfolds her life story that happened between the age 20 to 32. It briefs her struggle in the married life till her first appearance on the silver screen in a movie called 'Deep Throat'. I could have liked more if the movie would have the original cast Kate Hudson and James Franco as planned instead Amanda Seyfried. Nonetheless, it is a cool movie about a true story. To me what's important is the message to reach everybody than the technical and cast issues.

Linda is from a decent respected family who is attracted to Chuck, a guy she meets in a pub. Instantly they decide to get marry against her parents will. After the marriage, she is not permitted to interfere into her husbands business, in fact she does not know anything about it. Once Chuck gets into a severe trouble in his business the couple loose everything they had. So then he decides to put Linda into an audition for a movie in the lead role. Everything goes as planned, in one movie and it's success they begin to reclaim their position in life. Now as a popular celebrity in the country, what Linda decides about her future is the rest of the story.

Amanda Seyfried was excellent as Linda Lovelace, she exceeded all my expectation and so the Peter Sarsgard. In the initial parts I almost started to dislike the movie because I thought it was travelling in one direction which I was not happy about. In half way the movie begins to explain in different perspective of the same story and that is where it almost convinces the audience. Still a few things need proper explanation especially her relationship with Marchiano. I believe they are not planning for a sequel to brief her second marriage and rest of the life till she dies. The movie had few nudes but no sexual interactions. It describes more on the emotional side than her professional stuffs. In the end this is about a real person's good and bad where we can learn something from their mistakes. Overall, it is a one time watchable biopic.