'Lovelace' Trailers: One's Woman's Rise To Success While Being Held Down

By Jodi Clager | Trailers | July 10, 2013 | Comments ()


still-of-amanda-seyfried-in-lovelace.jpg

I’m still not sure how I feel about the Linda Lovelace biopic. Amanda Seyfried looks like she has a handle on the emotional side of things, as well as the flirty and innocent appeal of Lovelace. Peter Sarsgaard is spot on as her creepy, controlling, sack of sh*t husband/captor, Chuck Traynor. Sharon Stone looks like she has actual feelings as Lovelace’s mother. Actual really real feelings that look real! Lovelace looks like a well done film that should earn all of those involved some kudos and awards. It is, most likely, a movie well worth watching.


(via Bleeding Cool)

The trailers make me sad.

The abuse is very difficult to watch. That difficulty clangs upward several points when you remind yourself that it did, in fact, happen to Lovelace and she lived like that for a period of time. It’s a frustrating point of contention in my brain when we see a film meant to chronicle the rise of a woman while also showing how the man she should have been able to trust the most, her husband, forced her with physical abuse to continue a career she wanted to abandon. It’s frustrating that this story isn’t more of an archaic throwback to a less enlightened time, but more of a reminder of how the more things change, the more they stay the same. And that makes me sad.



Are you following Pajiba on Facebook or Twitter? Because every time you do an angel does the Paul Rudd dance

Around the Web


"League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" Pilot Ordered | This Is How Amy Poehler Would Cast "Game of Thrones" With "Parks and Rec" Characters





Comments Are Welcome, Jerks Will Be Banned


  • klingonfree

    This was a bummer of a book and turned me away from 'celebrity' biographies in general (tho I LOVE me some rock biographies). I could never see this movie. Porn, in general, is repellant and not because I am prudish. Far from. But I could never watch it knowing that its roots are almost always in oppression and the denigration of women. I cannot feel anything but pity for the pathos of her story. But I won't watch it. Not even for the Sarsgard.

  • PDamian

    "... a film meant to chronicle the rise of a woman ..."

    But did she "rise?" She certainly achieved some notoriety, but she made very little money from her efforts, and from what little I know of her life, she was used by others for their own gain almost all of her life -- first by her husband, then by anti-porn activists, and finally by publishers and porn producers again. The few interviews I've seen and articles I've read seem to show a woman of middling intelligence and remarkable lack of self-awareness who was easily manipulated by anyone with a stronger will and personality.

    I won't see the film, simply because I don't think I could bear the scenes in which she's brutalized. But more than that, I can't see her as a heroine, or protagonist, or anything other than a victim in her own story. She's a tragedy, an object of pity, and a cautionary tale, not an inspiration.

  • Brian Martin

    Bored halfway throught the trailer... Back to "A Field in England".

  • ,

    I watched a porn movie once that must have been edited and cropped to adhere to some local or state law, because all the actual action and all the relevant parts were juuuuuuuuust off the edge of the screen. A lot of head bobbing, is what it amounted to. It was like going to a strip club where the girls had to wear bras and panties (I've done that too).

    This is going to be just like that, isn't it?

  • Emm82

    Please tell me you're joking?

  • ,

    About the movie and the strip club?

    No.

    This was, however, many years ago.

    I DID mean that the trailer for the movie makes it look like all the hot stuff is going on juuuuuust out of view. Many idiots are going to pay $10 thinking they're going to see Amanda's hoo-haw and I think they're going to be disappointed.

  • Emm82

    Fair enough - I was worried about mouth breathers, etc which you clearly are not. Very sorry
    Also, why take the big bits out of porn? was it pre watershed, or just post maybe? Sorry, i'm interested now!

  • ,

    This was while I was visiting a friend. He took me to the his video shop, gave me his ID and sent me in to pick something out. So I picked this thing that looked somewhat interesting. The guy at the counter told me he had "more in the back," but I didn't think anything of it. Why wouldn't I be getting the real deal up front? It wasn't until we watched this juuuuust off the screen thing with lots of bobbing hair and next to no meat that I realized the guy at the counter probably meant he had the hardcore videos "in the back" and movies like the one I got up front for people who maybe wanted to test out some porn but didn't want to go full-in on the uglies just yet. Or something. I still don't know.

  • Sara_Tonin00

    a) this isn't an actual porn flick
    b) they aren't red band trailers, so who knows what will actually be seen in the movie?

  • ,

    a) Yes, I know.
    b) Too bad.

  • Jezzer

    My heart bleeds for them.

  • L.O.V.E.

    And to think this movie was nearly ruined from the get go when Lindsay Lohan was connected to the project.
    But I have a feeling I am going to be disappointed when the movie ends with no Dirk Diggler appearance.

  • NateMan

    I enjoy porn. I don't enjoy that I enjoy porn when I remember that so many people, women especially, do porn because they see their options as limited. There are so many things we need to do better.

  • Fredo

    I recall seeing an interview with some former famous porn star who said that it wasn't like the people in porn were choosing between porn and a career elsewhere. They were choosing between porn and poverty. I think they also said in the show that most actors in porn tend to be out of it within the first 2 years or so. The Ron Jeremys and Jenna Jamesons of the world were extremely rare it seems.

  • BWeaves

    So, how come (pardon the pun) the UK trailer is so much better than the USA trailer?

  • toblerone

    Muricans are dumb (see: box office totals this weekend for Grown Ups 2).

  • ZizoAH

    "Peter Sarsgaard is spot on as her creepy, controlling, sack of sh*t husband/captor"

    Isn't he like this in everything lately? I mean, I love me some Sarsgaard, but come on...Talking about "The Chandler Bing Effect".

  • NateMan

    Very true. He's so good and typecast as creepy I have trouble remembering he probably isn't that way in real life.

  • emmalita

    It's the mustache. It makes him look sleazy and creepy, unlike Paul Rudd's mustache, which makes him look sleazy and adorable. Even when Sarsgaard doesn't have the mustache, you know it's there.

  • ,

    So, basically it's "Star 80"?

    Well, I guess you can't make too many cautionary tales. It's always new to somebody.

  • John G.

    Jesus, does Juno Temple play anything other than prostitutes, hookers and porn stars?

  • Ghisent

    Take a look at the movie she did with Eva Green, Cracks. It's really good.

  • John G.

    I didn't say her movies were bad. I'm asking if she ever plays beyond a certain type.

    I loved Afternoon Delight, where she plays a stripper/prostitute.

  • Ghisent

    No, I get that. It's why I recommended Cracks, because she does play a different character.

  • Brian Martin

    She's still kiiind of a hooker in Cracks...I mean, why you wanna hate on Fiamma for being elegant!?

  • God Of Bal-Sagoth

    That's a tremendously shitty thing to say.

  • Brian Martin

    Pipe down Robbie.

  • Fredo

    Then perhaps those conflicted feelings only highlight how relevant the movie is.

  • bucadonebuvi

    мy coυѕιɴ ιѕ мαĸιɴɢ $51/нoυr oɴlιɴe. υɴeмployed ғor α coυple oғ yeαrѕ αɴd prevιoυѕ yeαr ѕнe ɢoт α $1З619cнecĸ wιтн oɴlιɴe joв ғor α coυple oғ dαyѕ. ѕee мore αт...­ ­ViewMore----------------------...

    This was a bummer of a book and
    turned me away from 'celebrity' biographies in general (tho I LOVE me
    some rock biographies). I could never see this movie. Porn, in general,
    is repellant and not because I am prudish. Far from. But I could never
    watch it knowing that its roots are almost always in oppression and the
    denigration of women. I cannot feel anything but pity for the pathos of
    her story. But I won't watch it. Not even for the Sarsgard.

  • koko temur

    Oh, how well said..

blog comments powered by Disqus





Follow Us



Related Posts




Viral Hits
Celebrity Facts

The Best TV & Movie Quotes

The Walking Dead

How I Met Your Mother

True Detective

Parks and Recreation

Cosmos

Hannibal

30 Practical Tips About the Horrors of Raising Children

25 Practical Tips About the Horrors of Raising Twins