Directed by the team of Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman, "Lovelace" is a short and not-so-sweet Hollywoodization of the real-life story of Linda Boreman, a.k.a. adult movie sensation Linda Lovelace. At 21 years old, she's living with her uptight parents (Robert Patrick and an unrecognizable Sharon Stone) when she meets charming stranger Chuck Traynor (Peter Sarsgaard). He's actually a pretty sleazy guy who finagles her into a job in porn films, specifically the landmark effort "Deep Throat". He also turns out to be an abusive monster, whose atrocities were recounted by Linda in her book "Ordeal".

With these Hollywood versions of such stories, it's always advisable to take them with a grain of salt. For one thing, even this viewer, who's not particularly knowledgeable about the adult film industry, knows full well that Linda did a fair bit more than just that one classic. "Lovelace" the movie actually leaves out some things to focus on limited story threads. The filmmakers try to be clever with their narrative by jumping back and forth in time, but this could only be confusing for some in the audience.

It's worth a look just to watch Epstein, Friedman, and company give us a look into the porn filmmaking scene in the 1970s. Time and place are well captured, but the soundtrack tends to get annoying; we don't need these constant reminders of when the story largely takes place. The film IS very slick, and makes its points in approximately an hour and a half, so it doesn't overstay its welcome.

The strength lies in the talents of the ensemble cast. Amanda Seyfried is appealing as the not-so-innocent but still endearing Linda, while Sarsgaard, no stranger to creepy roles, is convincing as the slime ball husband. Stone gives a creditable performance in a severely deglamourized role, and Adam Brody is a hoot as porn legend Harry Reems. James Franco is charisma-free and miscast as Hugh Hefner.

There is enough compelling material here for one to realize that a more in-depth recounting of the tale would be appreciated.

Six out of 10.

If BOOGIE NIGHTS was a fun, whirlwind tour of the 1970s porn scene, LOVELACE shows the gritty realism and 'truth' of the situation: a world in which women were routinely used and abused by men, and in which the porn industry attracted the sleaziest members of society.

Amanda Seyfried was an unexpected choice to play famous porn starlet Linda Lovelace, but I think she makes a good job of the role; certainly memories of her being all sweet and angelic in MAMMA MIA! and the like are long dispersed. The script of LOVELACE is in two parts, the first half feeling a little like BOOGIE NIGHTS in its celebration of fame and fortune, while the second half ventures down some very dark alleyways to explore the seedier side of the situation.

Although the subject of the matter isn't exactly something I'm interested in, at least the producers gather together a good supporting cast. Sharon Stone and Robert Patrick are both unrecognisably aged as Lovelace's puritanical parents, while James Franco contributes a memorable cameo as Hugh Hefner of all people. Eric Roberts and Wes Bentley both have cameos (the latter typecast as a photographer again) while BOARDWALK EMPIRE's Bobby Cannavale plays a scuzzy director. Peter Sarsgaard, as Lovelace's husband, is one of the most detestable characters in the history of cinema. LOVELACE is a film that pulls no punches and offers a strong indictment against those who commit violence against women.

This movie is basically split in 2. The 1st half is the happy Lovelace story. There are allusion to trouble but it's never delved into. The 2nd half shows most of the behind the scenes violence and darkness. Good movies that does this have a reason behind this structure, most notably Rashômon(1950). Lovelace does this for no good cinematic reason.

The main problem is the 1st half. It's so annoyingly cutesy with her life. At the same time, it's obvious that a story behind the story isn't being told. It's a frustrating 45 min to sit thru. And it doesn't really show anything surprising or enlightening. It played like a weak Lifetime movie.

The 2nd half has the more compelling storyline. But it still seemed superficial. Just as an example, the mother and daughter storyline was amazing but it's given short-shrift. Instead of telling the same story twice, tell it once and expand on some of the more emotional elements.

Amanda Seyfried, Peter Sarsgaard and especially Sharon Stone all give good performances. The blame can't be laid on them. They did their job. Then there is the 'Inspired by' tag, not 'Based on'. It's always a red flag in a biopic. We may not expect a documentary, but for god sakes, the woman wrote books. Not that tough to go 'Based on'.