So the (is it considered a biopic?) movie about Linda Lovelace and her time in the porn industry is out now. I remember when they were first talking about this movie, adapted from Lovelace's tell-all or whatever, and I remember wondering why they were making the movie in the first place.
The word going around was that it would portray the brutal demeaning stuff that Lovelace had to endure during her time in the industry, including some pretty wretched treatment at the hands of her boyfriend. And they were talking like the movie would not hold back in putting that stuff on screen.
Lindsay Lohan was trying desperately to get this role (and Malin Akerman as well, or perhaps that was a competing adaptation) and at the time I couldn't imagine anyone wanting to go through all that stuff in a movie. But the part went to uber cutie Amanda Seyfried, which saddened me even more.
The other thing that gets me is why would anyone want to watch this in the first place? The story is such a downer, maybe it's just me, but I don't want to go to a movie to be depressed. There's the voyeur aspect of course, which I'm sure will drive some fans, mostly men, who want to see Seyfried naked:
But I'm just not getting it. Same goes for Lohan, who got her wish to play a sort of battered and abused woman in a highly sexual atmosphere in The Canyons. I did a post years ago about how it always amazes me that these actresses always look to play hookers or strippers when they want to show range or maturity in their careers. Is that Seyfried's thinking here? I haven't looked, but she seems to me to have a pretty impressive resume to date. She doesn't need this role. I can see Lindsay thinking she might, to resurrect her own flagging career, but either Amanda or Malin . . . not seein' it.
And like I said, not seein' this movie either.
6 comments:
I've always kind of liked Seyfried and thought she was hot and sexy, but she's got kind of a crappy body, ya know? No hips, sort of a flabby belly and unimpressive breasts. Very disappointed. I wonder if other fans feel the same way.
That's a bit harsh, I think. You probably shouldn't judge her on those lo-res screen caps, I've seen her in other stuff and she's looked pretty darn good. It's possible she dough-ed herself up a bit for the role. Let's face it -- Linda Lovelace wasn't exactly attractive, her draw was her talent (so to speak), not her looks.
Thanks for commenting :-)
I just saw her movie and her performance was impressive. I think she might even go for an Oscar with this one. It's just the backstory that actually makes this woman deserve to be remembered as something more than deep throat.
I have no doubt Seyfried does an awesome job with the role, she's a talented actress. Probably won't get the Oscar for it as this year the PC crowd will make sure that everyone in the 12 years movie wins everything.
Lovelace's backstory is horrific to be sure, like I said, I'm not sure I'd like to watch it on film. I suppose it needs to be told, but I can't imagine anyone these days is still harboring the delusion that the porn industry is a glamorous life. But who knows.
Thanks for commenting :-)
It's very kind of her to show us her boobs at last. Yum!
Yeah, she's been overdo for a role that has some skin.
Seriously sexy, nice to see what she's been hiding from us :-)
Post a Comment