It is quite surprising that sweet and wholesome Amanda Seyfried has been cast as legendary 70s porno star Linda Lovelace. Seyfried, whom we know better as ingénues in musical films like "Mamma Mia" and "Les Miserables," how could she pull this daring stunt off?
"Lovelace" tells of how young and pretty Linda Boreman, from a strict Catholic family, unlikely met and married a sleazy guy named Chuck Traynor.
First, she goes along with Chuck's wild idea to make a her a porn actress, exploiting a certain extraordinary talent of hers which would be the central theme of a little porn flick entitled "Deep Throat." She actually enjoyed the heady success of this stardom as Linda Lovelace, for a while at least.
In a sudden change of pace, the second half of the movie showed how Linda was abused by her husband, physically, mentally, sexually, financially. She quietly suffered this torture until she could not take it anymore and fights to get her old life back.
The acting of Ms. Seyfried was quite good, as she was able to convince us that she was Linda despite being cast against type. She will get us on her side before the film ends. People who watch this film expecting her to reveal more skin will be disappointed, as this Linda kept it pretty clean on screen. The image painted of Linda was actually very sympathetic as well, like it was all Chuck's fault. Ms. Seyfried played the perfect naive victim.
Peter Sarsgaard was effectively creepy as Chuck from the start. You really cannot understand how Linda would marry a guy like this. He could have portrayed being more charming in the beginning to convince us. But he looked like a creep even in that scene where he first met with Linda's parents (portrayed by Robert Patrick and a completely unrecognizable Sharon Stone.)
I think the main problem of the film was in its story telling. There was a very abrupt and stark transformation from happy Linda in Act 1 and sad Linda in Act 2. I think the director was trying to be stylistic about this, not telling these details linearly, instead going back and forth in time. I think this could have been told more effectively another way.
