Wednesday, January 8, 2014

Lovelace (2013)

Well this movie seemed to come out of nowhere. When I first heard about a biographical film about the life of X-rated film actress Linda Lovelace, I was surprised. And then to hear that Amanda Seyfried was going to play the lead, well that intrigued me even more. I wondered how far the star would go in her role, and how far the film itself would explore the life and times of Linda Lovelace.

Linda (Amanda Seyfried) is your typical all American girl enjoying life in the early 1970s. Her parents are over protective and very religious. She needs to break away every once in a while and have some fun at discos and roller rinks. That is where she meets Chuck (Peter Sarsgaard). At first Chuck seems like a cool guy with a bad boy streak in him. He helps Linda escape her overbearing home and enjoy some solid party time.

Of course all this costs money and soon the pair (now married) have to make ends meet. So Chuck convinces Linda to appear in an adult film, showcasing her very special talent. Linda becomes an instant success, turning the film Deepthroat into a huge hit and media talking point. But things are not well and good with Linda and Chuck. The more famous she becomes, the more success corrupts Chuck. It’s a downward spiral that causes Linda to want to escape the name Lovelace.

Good Points:
  • Seyfried does a good job in the lead role
  • Sarsgaard is particularly vile in this film
  • Moves a good pace

Bad Points:
  • Fairly standard execution typical of biographical films
  • Some have argued that the source material is not reliable
  • Those looking for Boogie Nights 2 will be disappointed

I imagine Seyfried wanted to try something a little different in this film and she gets the opportunity. However the movie itself never really reaches out and grabs the viewer. It may have something to do with the odd flashback structure (something that all biography films seem to require). Not a bad film, but missing that extra something to make it a real winner.

Scores (out of 5)
Visuals: 3
Sound: 3
Acting: 4
Script: 3
Music: 3
Direction: 3
Entertainment: 3
Total:  3

Curious about a full review, sent me an email and I’ll make additional thoughts to this review.    


  1. I've heard the complaints that Lovelace (aka Boreman) changed her philosophical positions according to what would pay the most at the moment in books and speaking engagements -- her later claims that she had been "used" by the anti-pornography movement echoed her earlier claims against the pornography industry. I don't know the truth about that, but, for the purpose of filmmaking at least, it doesn't really matter. What matters if the story works on screen. Hey, Commodus didn't die in the arena (he was strangled in his bath) but Gladiator is still a good movie.

    I like Amanda Seyfried as an actress (also Juno Temple who has a minor role) though her films are hit and miss. I haven't seen this one, but it sounds like this isn't cleanly one or the other.

    1. I'm with you Seyfried's films kinda run all over the place. In bad movies, she's usually the best part of the film. This movie is worth checking out, but not spending too much time or money picking up. :)

  2. Good review, though I haven't seen the film. I wonder about the true story behind all it. I think she wrote a book about it at one time, but as said above by Richard, it's hard to figure out if even that's the truth.

    1. Yes, I believe this film is based on her book. And the film ends with her character going onto talk shows and discussing the book.