Lovelace ★★★½

There was plenty working against this movie to begin with, so for it to come out even this mildly effective was a bit of a surprise. One of the major things it was going to have to prove was the choice to cast Amanda Seyfried in such a significantly more challenging role than anything she's really done to this point. Yes, Chloe can be considered a nice departure for her in an otherwise laughable filmography, but playing that kind of role didn't seem like much a stretch.

Playing Linda Lovelace, however, gives Seyfried a major chance to take some good strides toward having a more diverse and successful career and convince some of us that she isn't just going to be a Hollywood glamour, big budget role chooser forever. With all that rambling behind me now, I can happily report that Seyfried is quite good in the title role here. The movie's structure never quite puts in enough to match the performance of its lead, and certainly not of the performance from Peter Sarsgaard as Linda's greasy, low-life, abusive husband, Chuck Traynor. Sarsgaard, whose always been a terrific supporting player, turns in one of his absolute best performances with easily his most unlikable character since Boys Don't Cry.

Keeping the cast filled with a lot of well-known names does a nice job of making Lovelace always an interesting watch, but it's very oddly paced and seems a little lost in time structure as it shifts around a little haphazardly. It also seems like it was forced too end before it really should have, and at just 92 minutes I'd have to say that it's really at least 15 minutes too short. This is a biopic, and I for one could have used more of Linda's story after the chaos of her moment in pornography. All in all, though, I as pleasantly surprised to be caught up in most of the performances. They are the reason to see it.

Block or Report