An intentionally campy film designed to capitalize on Linda Lovelace's sudden fame following "Deep Throat", this film centers around Linda's fictional grass roots campaign to run for ... See full summary »
Nurse Linda Lovelace works for libidinous sex therapist Dr. Jayson. One of the patients she is treating is Dilbert Lamb, a meek geek who's harboring plans for a top secret government ... See full summary »
[to Anthony Romano]
This isn't small-time. I'm meeting this guy at Hef's party, OK? This guy, he owns half the adult bookstores on the West Coast. Millions in merchandise. Linda, like, sweet talks this guy, right? Or better yet, she sweet sucks this guy... we're made in the shade!
See more »
As I was watching Lovelace I really wanted to like this movie. It you have seen the documentary "Inside Deep Throat" and you watch this film, you'll realize that even with the artistic license the filmmakers gave themselves here, there is much missing in this story. The actors seem like they were doing their jobs. They did not seem truthful in their exposition and intent. Amanda seems miscast for the second half of the film. Watching the second half of the film got ever so more interesting. Things were happening and I could not quite pin down why they weren't working. The story was developing but it was not synchronized. Now that does not mean it need to be chronological, it just need to keep a certain mode to ensure the viewer remains invested in the story. I found myself drifting thinking why are some of the characters coming across as empty shells and I could not figure it out. This of course was causing my suspension of disbelief to be altered whereas I could not focus my mind on the images presented. To me, the best performance of the film was of Adam Brody and he was only in the film minutes at a time, but he was very convincing as Linda Lovelance's co star of "Deep throat" and he performed with conviction and credibility. And that is where my gripe comes from, Amanda's performance was not credible. Peter Saarsagard was playing well... Petet Saarsgard and if you see him in other film such as "Dying Gaul" you'll see that what you see is what you get. With Sharon Stone unfortunately there wasn't much of a range. Did they make her up differently, yes they did. However, she was being well....and older Sharon Stone. Then midway the narratives started to intermingle with it seems like two stories being told simultaneously and that further detracted from the story. Interesting enough, after seeing "The Canyons" the day before I kept thinking to myself that this film would have been better served in the hands for Paul Schrader and the lead actress would have been better served if it was played by troubled Lindsay Lohan. Even though many wonder why she keeps getting second chances withe roles in films and the answer is because she is very talented. Yes, she tends to squander on her chances, but this is one actress that seem like she would have been more suited to play the part than Amanda. The film succeed with the look of the 70's. However, for such a sultry story, this film could have been told with more bravado instead of it being more sanitized to reach a wider audience or conform to notes given by too many hands working in the kitchen. Someone with a voice should have taken this film and moved it to decidedly darker places as the porn industry really was back in the day as it stand many of the film's characters came across as caricatures of the real people, except for Adam Brody who seem to have nailed his character perfectly.
22 of 41 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?