View Single Post
Kitsa Kitsa is offline
teacup of sunshine
Kitsa's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: curator of the WTFbus museum
Old Jan 7th, 2014, 12:48 AM       
I just watched Lovelace, the biopic of Linda Lovelace that has Amanda Seyfried in the title role. I'm interested in the whole Linda Lovelace thing, and I have a copy of Ordeal. I've watched Inside Deep Throat and sort of have a general grasp on the story as she and the directors/producers presented it.

I didn't know if I was going to go into this movie loving or hating it, because reviews were not great at all. And really I kind of ended up doing a little of both. I did not expect to have this movie in my head after I stopped watching it, but here we are. So let me try to sort it out.

- Whoever captured the ugly 60s-70s aesthetic so fucking perfectly, kudos. They matched EVERYTHING. Everyone was ugly, everything was ugly, the decor was exactly as horrible as I remember the decor of the era being. They even matched the tone of the film to a 70s-era production. It was absolutely brilliant.

-The Amanda Seyfried casting started out sketchy, but she kind of grew on you. She really did have a lot of the Linda Lovelace mannerisms down and all that remained distracting was the hair. It just didn't look right.

- The rest of the cast was so big-name and bizarre in the given situation that it was sort of fascinating to watch. Who wouldn't pause to stare at the girl from Big Love sucking off the guy from The OC while Hank Azaria watches in ridiculous high-water pants? Sharon Stone is damn near unrecognizable. I do have to admit, though, I did not realize that Peter Sarsgaard was playing the role of Linda's husband until I looked it up. I swear to you I thought it was Pauly Shore.

-There was a big controversy when Ordeal came out that Linda was really sort of candy-coating her involvement in the whole thing and painting herself as a bigger victim than she really was. If you believe Ordeal, she was 100% innocent. If you believe Inside Deep Throat, she wasn't completely innocent and sort of tripped through things in a happy, dippy way, doing as she was told. And some of the interviews in that really don't make her look like too much of an intellectual, so maybe there's something to that. But as the movie went through its first half, it seemed to REALLY gloss over everything. And just as you were thinking that maybe they were really dicking you over on the truth, they start the second half with her in a polygraph set and go over the whole thing again, but with more ugly. And it's a lot more believable that time.
Reply With Quote