Amanda Seyfried in Lovelace: Full Review.

Lovelace

Cast: Amanda Seyfried, Peter Sarsgaard, Juno Temple

Writer Andy Belin

Directors: Rob Epstien,Jeffrey Friedman

* out of Four

The Movie "Deep Throat" is considered to be the "Casablanca" of adult cinema. It made a shitload of money back in the 70's and it was the only porno that had a-list stars come out and see it.  I've seen the movie before folks, and trust me it's not that great.  Keep this image in your head if you do decide to watch it.  Your parents and hell maybe your grandparents probably got off watching this. If you are grossed out by that scenario, I would highly recommend you skip that film and instead watch the documentary "Inside Deep Throat".  That film goes behind the making of the famous skin flick and features interviews with the cast and how it was relevant to the times people were living in.  It was for better or worse the start of the sexual revolution.  Better yet if you want to have a good representation of the Adult industry during the 70's.  Watch "Boogie Nights".  That movie shows you both the highlights and the low lights of that world.  The movie "Lovelace" does the same thing too, but instead of showing you one version of the story.  It give you two and has you choose what version to believe.  If this movie really wanted to tell this lady's story.  It did a horrible job at doing so.




Linda Lovelace(her real last name was Boreman) came out years later and denounced her work in the film and says that she was forced by her then husband Chuck to perform those acts in it.  Although the film went on to win some box office status.  Miss Lovelace claims she did not receive any of the profits that it made.  Now I'm not denying that she was abused by her husband or that she could have been forced to be in the movie.  But if that was the case, why wasn't that story shown in this feature from the start.  Why do we get something that tries to show this world as being fun and then give us an alternate dark version of the same story.  I swear I was expecting at one point a title card to say.

"That's one it could have happened. But here's another way"

Plot twists like this, can work great in some features but not here.  By having two versions of the same story. You completely don't trust the person's story you are suppose to represent.  If this was a documentary about Lovelace's fight against "Deep Throat" and you showed both stories.  I could buy into that.  This movie wants you on the side of Linda, so Im confused on why show both.

The casting is good and Amanda Seyfried does a good job in the title role.  Although to be fair she looks nothing like the real Lovelace.  Alia Shawkat("Whip It") looks more like her in the face, but the body wouldn't have matched so maybe that's why they went with Seyfried instead.I don't know.  Although to be fair.  Seyfried as a much better body.  Peter Sarsgaard as her abusive boyfriend/manager Chuck is ok and so are Sharon Stone and Robert Patrick as her strict parents.  No one in the cast is bad at what they do, and if this was in another director's hands.  I feel that their roles could have been represented better.   This could also be the fault of the script because they're are many scenes that felt they were cut and somehow we are suppose to just fill in the blanks.  After Linda and Chuck tell her parents that they are going to a movie and instead go back to his place to have sex.  She comes home late after curfew and gets slapped by her mom.  Next scene is her the next day putting a suitcase in Chuck's car and they are getting married and moving away.  The movie has several more of these moments where we are just suppose to guess what's going on in the story.   That is not good filmmaking or storytelling, people.  That is just flat out laziness.  I would like to give this a higher rating because the actors in it are really good.  It's just that if the script isn't clear on whose version is true or not.  Why should we care to watch it.