La storia di Linda Lovelace, che viene usata e maltrattata dall'industria del porno per volere del marito coercitivo prima di prendere il controllo della sua vita.La storia di Linda Lovelace, che viene usata e maltrattata dall'industria del porno per volere del marito coercitivo prima di prendere il controllo della sua vita.La storia di Linda Lovelace, che viene usata e maltrattata dall'industria del porno per volere del marito coercitivo prima di prendere il controllo della sua vita.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
- Premi
- 1 vittoria e 3 candidature totali
- Sammy Davis Jr.
- (as Ronald Pritchard)
Recensioni in evidenza
Amanda Seyfried plays Linda, a shy and fairly innocent young girl who falls for Chuck (Peter Sarsgaard) , a mostly manipulative manager/pimp that eventually becomes Linda's husband. Lovelace begins shortly before Linda meets Chuck and establishes Linda's home life with her parents (played by Robert Patrick and an unrecognizable Sharon Stone).
We first meet Chuck as he lays eyes on Linda at a roller skating rink where Linda does an impromptu dance in front of the live band. Chuck woos the younger Linda using his charm and the alluring freedom of his adult lifestyle to eventually bring Linda to a point where she moves out of her home.
The inexperienced Linda is comfortable enough to have Chuck film her giving him oral pleasure and Chuck takes his Super 8 home movie to Butchie Peraino and Gerry Damiano (Bobby Cannavale and Hank Azaria) who are so enthralled with Linda's oral sex talents that they immediately get producer Anthony Romano to provide the funds to make a film that will eventually become Deep Throat.
We get a few topless scenes of Seyfried emulating the famous porn star of the era and enjoying her fame until everything falls like a house of cards due to Chucks violent manner and his insistence that Linda have sex with multiple partners for the purposes of his own financial gain and notoriety.
The film takes us beyond the filming of Deep Throat and we watch as Linda copes with how the film put a strain on the relationship with her parents and through her book deal and talk show circuit appearances where she vehemently denounced pornography.
Laden with a talented cast, Lovelace fails to either have audiences find fault or fall in love with our title character. Everyone in the production come across as characters rather than actual people so it is hard for a viewing audience to attach themselves – good or bad – to any of the competent actors that make up the casting call.
Directors Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman simply don't chisel away at the inner character or either Chuck or Linda with enough feeling to make this a well rounded bio-pic. Instead, it flat-lines with any pulse and does nothing more that attempt to be an exploitation flick about an exploitation flick. Even as the time is captured fairly well in the styles and moods of the early 70's, it ultimately fails in capturing much of anything else including our attention.
The final title cards might have been the most interesting revelations of the entire films. That Linda Lovelace died from injuries suffered in a car accident at age 53. That Chuck Traynor went on to marry another famous actress in the porn industry in his nuptials to Marilyn Chambers. And how the movie Deep Throat went on to become the most successful porn film of all-time raking in hundreds of millions while Linda collected less than $2,000 for her starring role.
If you have always been interested with the film Deep Throat or the incredible life of Linda Lovelace, you may want to seek out any of the documentaries or A&E specials on the topic. Because Lovelace will just leave you superficially satisfied.
www.killerreviews.com
Then, suddenly, we are thrown into the second film, a PG-13 Lifetime Network-like drama including violins playing. The second film retells the first film, showing the behind the scenes abuse Linda receives from her husband and portraying Linda as someone who is doing it all reluctantly and is trying to escape the porn business. The stark contrast between the second and first films would be more effective if the second film wasn't so formulaic--it even has a gift wrapped happy ending. I imagine the truth of Linda's life falls somewhere in the middle, with Linda's own bad judgment playing at least some part in her life's situation. Unfortunately, although Amanda Seyfried is lovely in the first film as the naive young newlywed getting caught up in the porn business, she isn't reinvented and just doesn't transcend in the more watered down drama of second film like, say, Charlize Theron was in the film Monster. There just aren't any great performance by anyone in the second film as a matter of fact and the scenes that are suppose to be brutal just aren't. When it comes to showing the ugly side of the porn biz this film peters out.
Lovelace, therefore, stands as a slightly above average and obviously heavily fictionalized biopic, when it could and should have been much more, if only some more guts were put into the second half of it.
With these Hollywood versions of such stories, it's always advisable to take them with a grain of salt. For one thing, even this viewer, who's not particularly knowledgeable about the adult film industry, knows full well that Linda did a fair bit more than just that one classic. "Lovelace" the movie actually leaves out some things to focus on limited story threads. The filmmakers try to be clever with their narrative by jumping back and forth in time, but this could only be confusing for some in the audience.
It's worth a look just to watch Epstein, Friedman, and company give us a look into the porn filmmaking scene in the 1970s. Time and place are well captured, but the soundtrack tends to get annoying; we don't need these constant reminders of when the story largely takes place. The film IS very slick, and makes its points in approximately an hour and a half, so it doesn't overstay its welcome.
The strength lies in the talents of the ensemble cast. Amanda Seyfried is appealing as the not-so-innocent but still endearing Linda, while Sarsgaard, no stranger to creepy roles, is convincing as the slime ball husband. Stone gives a creditable performance in a severely deglamourized role, and Adam Brody is a hoot as porn legend Harry Reems. James Franco is charisma-free and miscast as Hugh Hefner.
There is enough compelling material here for one to realize that a more in-depth recounting of the tale would be appreciated.
Six out of 10.
And the manner in which the two views on the same girl are interconnected in the film is the strong point of the movie: the technique of show 'reality' while simultaneously depicting 'fiction' works well. The cast is strong: Amanda Seyfried does a star turn as Linda Lovelace (aka Linda Susan Boreman aka Mrs. Larry Marchiano) though much of Lovelace's life is omitted (her liver transplant, her messy divorces, her other films, etc); Peter Sarsgaard is excellent as the smarmy drug-addled Chuck Traynor, the man who convinced Lovelace to enter porn; Sharon Stone and Robert Patrick as her rigid parents; Juno Temple in the thankless role as Lovelace's only friend Patsy; and the porn guys - Chris Noth, Bobby Cannavale, Hank Azaria, Adam Brody as the well-endowed Harry Reems (though that of course is never filmed), Chloë Sevigny as a Feminist Journalist, James Franco as Hugh Hefner, fellow porn star Dolly as portrayed well by Debi Mazar, Wes Bentley, Eric Roberts, and Ron Pritchard as Sammy Davis Jr.! There are real taped interviews and comments by Johnny Carson, Bob Hope and Walter Cronkite which enhance the credibility.
The film closes with an interview after Lovelace has revealed her past in her best selling book ORDEAL - and at that point the film slides down the hill of Hallmark type feel good. An entertaining film about a name from the 20th century that deserves visiting despite the fact that it simply goes on too long.
Grady Harp
The end of the film is what really redeems it. LOVELACE's best single aspect is its portrayal of the porno film industry and how the exploitation often goes much deeper than simply pressuring naive young ladies into being filmed doing things they loathe doing. There are, of course, many sides to any story: Some will like the slant LOVELACE takes; others inevitably won't. The makers of this film may have gone a bit too far in portraying Linda Boreman/Lovelace as a completely innocent girl-next-door who just happened to fall in with the wrong guy and his crowd, but I can see how that was hard to avoid.
Considering the subject matter, there is very little graphic sex/nudity, and it was obviously wise to avoid making an admonitory bio-drama about a porn star into a porno film in its own right.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizIn an interview, Amanda Seyfried talked about why she had no issue with being naked in this and other films. "I don't know why I'm comfortable. Nudity: whatever! Sex: we all do it. There's a time and a place to be naked (laughs). There's no part in this movie that makes me think, 'Oh, wow, she's naked.' She's a porn star! We simulated some scenes but there's no graphic content in this movie, at all. I mean the graphic stuff is when he's raping me on my wedding night. You see my skirt go up over my head when I'm being gang raped, but it's like so perfectly done. 'Chloe' is so graphic. And this is not...(Peter Sarsgaard and I) are not shy about our private parts. We also weren't walking around with our genitals out; our bottom half genitals. That might have been a little strange for me. I don't really have any interest in people seeing my vagina. It's just a personal thing. I don't mind seeing other people's vaginas. I guess I'm just insecure in that way. Peter, same thing. He was always covered up in that way. I think it's just our mutual understanding of we needed to be naked a lot of points in the movie and it wasn't a big deal. It's like a costume. I don't know why I feel comfortable. To be honest, when I was younger, I was terrified of sex. I don't know what happened over the years. I now have an appreciation for it, for people who don't put so much heaviness on it. I also don't understand why it's censored in movies."
- BlooperIn a scene set in 1970, two characters discuss Il braccio violento della legge (1971), which was released in 1971.
- Citazioni
Linda: You know I spent exactly seventeen days in the pornography industry and somehow these seventeen days are suppose to define who I am for the rest of my life, but I hope that people can see me for who I really am. I mean Linda Lovelace was a fictitious character. My name is Linda Marchiano. I can finally be myself. I'm a mother and a wife and that is where I found my joy.
- Colonne sonoreI've Got to Use My Imagination
Written by Gerry Goffin and Barry Goldberg
Performed by Gladys Knight & The Pips
Copyright 1973 SCREEN GEMS-EMI MUSIC (BMI)
Courtesy of Buddah
by arrangements with Sony Music Entertainment
I più visti
- How long is Lovelace?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paese di origine
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- Lovelace: Garganta profunda
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Alex Theatre - 216 North Brand Boulevard, Glendale, California, Stati Uniti(Deep Throat private screening)
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Budget
- 10.000.000 USD (previsto)
- Lordo Stati Uniti e Canada
- 356.582 USD
- Fine settimana di apertura Stati Uniti e Canada
- 184.536 USD
- 11 ago 2013
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 1.585.583 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione1 ora 33 minuti
- Colore
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 1.85 : 1