Lovelace

Conventional and rather preachy. Despite the emotional horror on display, it doesn't pack much of a punch because it's just so bloody obvious in terms of its message and structure.

Lovelace is a dull and generic, and unless you've already exhausted all other methods for learning about Linda Lovelace, you have no reason to seek it out. It doesn't contain the depth or insight that a good biopic needs; instead, it forces Linda's life into the clichés of the genre. I was immensely bored by this movie, even with the cameos from notable actors like James Franco, who shows up and does a terrible job as Hugh Hefner. I can't get over that.

The funny thing about this movie is that, in setting out to make a biopic about famous pornstar Linda Lovelace, the directors quite possibly made a movie worse than Deep Throat (1972). This is so sappy and conventional it hurts. I've come to find that only a select few people are actually good at biopics - and even the good biopics still come dangerously close to being Sunday school lectures.

Rancorous. Self-satisfied and stagy and self-consciously artsy and almost unendurably hammy and awfully goddamn chaste for a movie about a porn actress. A big, gleaming, steaming example of what's wrong with commercial Hollywood today, actually. Just watch BOOGIE NIGHTS again. Hell, just watch WONDERLAND again.

Passes the time.

Eh...it's no Boogie Nights, but then again I wasn't expecting it to be. Seyfried and Sarsgaard were great though James Franco popping up playing Hugh Hefner whilst looking nothing like Hugh Hefner did at the time sort of took me out of the film for a bit.

Strong performances from Amanda Seyfried and Peter Sarsgaard, but the film overall has a disjointed sort of feel, and lacks any perspective on the broader cultural context of Deep Throat.

A sloppily constructed, unmemorable, by-the-numbers biopic. The performances were decent, though Seyfried didn't really sell the part - granted, that may have had more to do with the bland script. This movie is mediocre in every way. It has no reason to exist given that Boogie Nights does.

Opens in 1970; they're talking about The French Connection (1971) ,could not suspend my disbelief. Time travelling suckers.

Anyone who's looking for porn shouldn't watch this movie, because this one is about the person behind the sensation that maybe she never wanted to be. Empathy is a key element to enjoy it, hence you won't like it if you don't have suche feeling. I liked the costumes, performance was solid throughout, and photography was nice. The back and forth hopping could have been better, but overall this was an enjoyable hour and a half.

This movie shouldn't have shied away from it's subject. Linda's real story is 10x more sickening and upsetting than this movie. Amanda Seyfried is great though.

It's fun in the same way that Boogie Nights is fun - love the 70s clothes and furniture, the sun-drenched setting, the music - but unlike Boogie Nights, it has very little substance to it. It's about as standard as a biopic gets and doesn't offer anything all that interesting. Love Franco's appearance as Hugh Hefner, though, and Seyfried is great.

All points for a strong performance of Amanda Seyfried. That was fun. She was Lovelace. But the story was a mess and I did not get what they wanted to say. Okay, he was a pig. That's it? Nothing deeper down the throat?

A surprisingly deep biopic that you might end up loving...

A relatively simple and straightforward biopic with no complexity whatsoever. It presents Lovelace's perspective as objective truth and refuses to question and interrogate it. Given how contradictory her account of her experience in the porn industry was, combined with the fact that this story has already been told many times before in various forms and guises across multiple platforms, there is an in-built redundancy that kills any potential from the outset. It's a passable TV film at best

This film wasnt perfect but definitely worth watching. I liked the way the film jumped through the timeline to offer a bit more back story at different stages of the plot. Some of the domestic violent scenes are quite graphic and difficult to watch with Peter Sarsgaard playing an excellent antagonist. This is just one side of the story so its difficult to say whats fact or fiction but as a movie I found it an interesting watch.

It's a bad start when the font for the opening titles annoys. They tried to hitch a tale of spousal abuse to the porn industries workings so clunkily that when Franco's -terrible- Heffner actually said "life immitates art" it was like the film makers called me a fucking idiot to my face. Good cast that deserved better.[df]

Choppy as hell and not in 3 distinguished chapters like it should have been. 1. Glamorous depiction 2. Brutal husbandry 3. Family reaction. Instead it's a blur between them all, in loose retreads of material. Some of the writing is witty at times but that's crammed in between all this Lifestyle channel schmultz. A pic for the emotionally blunted 30-40 year old female demographic. I wonder what Seyfried used to make all the sucking FX.

Standard biopic fare, on the same level as any number of similar made-for-TV efforts...except with more lurid subject matter. Mysteriously, this seems to have been intended for theaters.

Kind of imitating Boogie Nights but it's still fun to watch...Interesting approach of telling the same story at different angles... Unexpectedly good performance from Amanda Seyfried

I'm struggling to really see the point of Lovelace as a film. As a biopic, it's a tedious affair that edifies the abuse she suffered during her time in the adult industry. The 1st act spends it time blaring one era-defining song after another, but doesn't stray from conventional territory. The film is a personal tale that is tragic, but in this telling uninteresting. At least it is mercifully short. Seyfried's performance is good, and there's a cornucopia of recognisable actors in small roles.

Yep it's a shitty story. If you believe half of what Lovelace said prior to her death the story is ten times shittier. (She alleges she had sex with a dog just before Deep Throat.) I would have liked to see more of her involvement with Women's Lib and how she felt they also profited off of her just like the porn industry and maybe even more out of the story of her and Sammy Davis Jr. You can buy one of her many autobiographies on Amazon (Ordeal being her last and most jarring)for the 'full story

Especially watch it with your girl friend or wife. Both of you will like it!

An interesting story hampered by lackluster execution.

So this is how Hollywood talks about a subject the producers don't really want to talk about: it's ok to be sad, but this mostly has to be tragic as a vehicle to transform Amanda into a serious, Oscar-worthy actress. The directors try hard to recreate the 1970s -- and it all looks like a rated R That '70s Show's episode --, but barely touch the surface of the impact of Deep Throat in cinema. Instead, they prefer to frame her through two storylines -- one is sexy, the other is morbid.

It's a totally perfunctory biopic, like The Runaways but with a porn star instead of a rock group, right down to the predictably superficial 70s aesthetic.

A pretty tepid, preachy and conventional biopic, which is weird considering what it's about. Lovelace's story is as dramatic and interesting as any other, but the script (which, aside from a somewhat interesting reveal of Chuck Traynor's abusive tendencies, follows the standard biopic format to a tee) and the filmmaking fail to make the material really sing. Seyfried is pretty good as Lovelace but Sarsgaard's abusive svengali is too one-dimensional for him to do anything interesting with.

Berlinale 2013 & filmin teknik ve surukleyici kismi, boogie nights'i animsatan anlari, oyunculuklar, karakterin gelisimi, degisimi vs. iyiydi. lakin filmin ikinci kisminin giristigi ahlak sorgusu, filmin ilk kismindaki tum iyi ogeleri unutmama sebebiyet veriyor. ''Porno kotudur, erkek egemen toplum kadinlari kullaniyor ve kizlar, totaliter gelenekci ailelerinin dediklerini yapip, dizlerinden ayrilmamalidir.'' cumlesine cikan son yarim saati ile film ahlak bekcisi oluveriyor.

Good, not great. Telling the story several times from different angles is a good idea, but the execution is not perfect. In fact, it's a bit confusing, and the time jumps don't feel as natural as they should. Tastefully and well done. Sarsgaard is really great.

Amanda Seyfried does a good job in the lead role. Overall this a straight forward film with a lot of well know actors in small roles. The film is not ground breaking but it is an interesting story.

I'm reminded of Linda's revelation, later in life, that the anti-porn lobbying feminists Dworkin & McKinnon, who used her as their poster child in the 80s, were "making a buck off her just like everyone else". That holds true for this film too. It's entirely conventional as a biopic, manipulative and moralistic, and gutlessly shies away from earnest exploration of a fascinating true story. The documentary "Inside Deep Throat" is more informative. That said, it's very watchable.

I knew practically nothing about Linda Lovelace before watching this... and I'm still none the wiser. Glossing over the highs and lows of her stardom before jumping to the release of her autobiography, we learn little and care less. Neither Seyfried or Sarsgaard impress, with the only decent performances popping up from a couple of the supporting cast. Not dramatic, not revealing, not engrossing, not even titillating - I haven't seen Inside Deep Throat but it must be better than this.

If not the stupid scene in which the bad guy is punished, it would be a 80+ film due to clever change of perspective in the middle... it is true that otherwise film is preachy and predictable, but I am a moralist and biopics are of course predictable.

Watching the movie without knowing who Linda Lovelace was okay, I thought the critics were too harsh, but then I started reading more about her, the golden age of porn and her abusive husband, I realized that the movie wasn't really good at portraying her character, and what she's been through. So overall it's an okay movie to watch but nothing more..