Lovelace (2013)

For all the hype it got I was expecting a lot more!

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

I could hardly be bothered dignifying this movie with a review except to say that it is yet another piece of misandrist propaganda that attempts to have us believe that Women are simply victims of evil, manipulating men, who are one-dimensional brutes. Nowhere will you find a REAL film that truly represents the power dynamic that exists in gender relationships - The truth that women, if they choose, can ruin and/or hurt a mans life by many means. Violence is only one way of inflicting pain upon another person. And the Straw feminists have infiltrated the mainstream media and domestic violence industry to spread their message that all men are dangerous thugs, who have no right to express anger, protect themselves against the myriad of ways women can besmirch a mans name.They have the gall to lay down how a man should behave even if he's been humiliating, or even worse, attacked. This movie deliberately portrays Lovelace as a naive, innocent, girl who just wants to express herself, yet she is supposedly so doe-eyed, so wholesome and virtuous that she is totally taken advantage of by those around her, so tainted by rose coloured glasses that she didn't realise what was happening? The truth is the sex industry exploits both MEN AND WOMEN, Women prey on lonely men who are to frightened to approach a woman they are interested in, because 9 times out of ten they get abused and shamed, as if saying hello and introducing yourself to a woman were a crime. They take advantage of a mans need for social contact and female connection. On the other hand women are sometimes forced into 'working' in the sex industry against their will, but often of their own free will. This film does the real dynamic between men and women a huge disservice once again by portraying women as harmless little flowers and men as psychopathic brutes. The writers, editors etc, should be shamed of themselves for copping out to populist gender stereotypes. Those who know the real history of LL know that she changed her story, changed her excuses and blamed those responsible. There were more incantations of Linda than there were days in the month. Enjoy your revised dumbed down movie. Victim Feminists will see this as historical fact not lazy by the numbers movie making.

I came across this flick while searching for James Franco. So I came across About Cherry (2012) a flick about a young girl falling into the traps of the porn industry but sadly About Cherry misses it's aim. Lovelace came a year later and again Franco is just in it for a few minutes but that didn't bother me because being grown up in the seventies I still can remember those 'dirty theatres' at my hometown. It was full bloom porn that people were attending without bothering who could see you walk in, can't figure that one out nowadays. The seventies were the heydays of porn and the most notorious flick must have been Deep Throat (1972). The main star was Linda Lovelace. Sadly people not interested in flicks doesn't know what happened with here and had other things going on in their mind watching her but her life was one piece of sh*t.This is exactly what this flick shows from being a girl next door girl to be found by Chuck Traynor (Peter Sarsgaard). he was a nice guy but once shown how to have sex Linda became a victim of the brutality of Chuck. She was raised to obey your husband and that was what she did falling into the porn industry. Only appeared in 8 flicks she the most famous porn star of her time. Strangely this flick also gave some controversy as did Deep Throath due the fact that Amanda Seyfried was going to play Lovelace. She's not known for taking on that part of roles but she did fine and I was surprised that she even went naked. Some do say that the story shown isn't correct but it do shows how the industry worked and how some girls were threatened. I did like it to see the story behind Linda how becoming famous and how she ended her career moving on for 20 years against the porn industry and violence at home. Towards the end you will see the real Lovelace who died in 2002 due injuries at a car crash. Well acted and good story as simple as that.Gore 0/5 Nudity 1/5 Effects 0/5 Story 3/5 Comedy 0/5

I watched this movie mainly for two reasons; Amanda and the fact that it was about the porn industry. Overall it was a good movie with great acting by Amanda especially. However, towards the end it kind of fell apart. I knew nothing of Lovelace before this and so when it said at the end that she spoke against porn and abuse for 20 years until she died in 2002 two things hit me; 1) her crusade against porn failed and in fact the industry has grown massive, globally since 2002. 2) If she fought against porn and this was a movie to show her life and how badly porn affects it, why have porn IN the movie. I think it hurt her cause a bit because a lot of people will watch this movie just to see Amanda naked in it.

When reviewing a biopic, one always has to choose how much weight to put on the faithfulness of the story. Sometimes this is rather hard to do, whether it's because the real circumstances are not clear or that they wouldn't make for a good movie. Lovelace as a movie suffers from the former. There has been a lot of talk about Linda Lovelace, born Linda Boreman, from multiple sources, and people still argue how much forcing went into getting her into porn business. This film tries to straddle the fence by showing both sides of the argument. Whether this was a valid choice is a matter of taste.Let's talk about the positives first. The acting is really strong. Amanda Seyfried shines in her role, capable of innocent vulnerability and determined strength in equal measures, as needed. Peter Sarsgaard, playing Linda's abusive husband Chuck, is also suitably egoistically terrifying when enraged and all sweet words, charisma and honey when not. Special mention should also go to Sharon Stone, playing Linda's emotionally cold mother. The scene where Linda begs her for an asylum, only to be told to go back to her husband, is chilling to watch.The film also reaches the feel of the era rather well through clothing, hairstyles and makeup. Unfortunately the way the story is told is rather suboptimal. We get shown the same scenes from multiple perspectives, but the way this storytelling trick is utilized seems haphazard and more of an afterthought than anything else. It allows for some interesting commentary and it makes the story more interesting when we first see the more innocent version only to be given the so called full story later. And yet I feel that they should have gone with the grittier tone from the get go. Now the more innocent beginning feels like sugarcoating in order to hide the ugliness of the real story. Like the film makers are shying away from their story material.Ultimately it's hard to recommend Lovelace to anyone. It doesn't seem to be faithful enough to satisfy those that care about the actual story, its plot isn't strong enough to elevate it above its peers and as a whole it doesn't leave that much of an impact. See it if its source material interests you and/or if you're looking for some good acting performances.