then this movie can not be about a porn star who was very famous...
Amanda said she wants to keep this part of her body to her husband in the future and i respect that and ok with it, but then the directors should cast another actress who will bare all.
or am i wrong ???
she does get naked in the movie
shareThis movie is about violence against women, not sex. It wasn't made to turn anybody on. So unless you get off on women being beaten and sexually abused and made to feel less than an animal you won't like it.
shareFemale nudity is always fun, regardless of the situation in the movie. It's a fictional movie, not a documentary. Amanda Seyfried was not being physically or mentally abused while the film was shot, so I look forward to seeing her show the goods.
"My mistake. Four coffins."
You see plenty of goods in the movie.
Also...you see a sad movie about Linda Lovelace.
Either her husband at the time really learned his lesson after Linda left him, or the movie's full of lies because he went on to marry Marilyn Chambers who became much bigger than Linda....although no single movie I can think of became bigger than Deep Throat going by the gross figures.
Incredible that a movie so big gave so little to Linda.
http://www.youtube.com/user/alphazoom
https://soundcloud.com/#carjet-penhorn
In terms of fame, Traci Lords has to be in there somewhere.
"I tried bars. It's like Mass with too much wine and everyone praying to get laid."share
traci lords is definitely notorious, same as lovelace...
lovelace for her blasting of the porn industry when it suited her, and coming back to try to make more money off it when she was broke.
i am not saying all she said were lies, i am simply saying that not all of it is true....
as for lords, she went out of her way to lie, and forge false identification, to star in adult films illegally while to young to give consent.
thats pretty hevy stuff right there.
after that came out, and movies across the country had to be pulled off shelves because having them was now a felony... yeah, i can't imagine why she became a persona non gratis in the industry, and a joke to hollywood in general for the most part.
as for most famous, i would figure more on jenna jameson, or nina hartley for longevity and activity in their career...
This movie is only fictional due to actors/actresses. The movie itself is based on a real person.
shareI saw the original DT and honestly it was more like a comedy than actual eroticism. Everything seemed very innocent and way unlike what we see today with just the click of a mouse. Amanda is a very beautiful actress, and a professional one, but my brain always gets inside a movie and if a woman is being raped or abused in it, I don't care if her boobs are big or her pubic hair shaved. It's non-consensual violence and you're not supposed to be turned on by that.
share[deleted]
Dude why are you linking pictures of Jewish porn?
"Captain Insano shows no mercy"
Where did you get that image you sick f#ck?
http://korovamilkbar.b1.jcink.com/You are my wife now!
Um no.
shareI believe the movie is about the life and experience of the actress. To suggest its only about violence against women seems somewhat out of touch with reality. There were so many other aspects to the movie than that, but I guess some people can't handle more than one point at a time?
share[deleted]
[deleted]
Yes, you are wrong imo. If you want to see fully naked women go watch Starz. First and for most, the concept behind making non art-house/documentary type movies is to tell a story. Do you need to see her vag to know tell the story she is an abused woman/porn star? No. Do you need to show any nudity to tell the story? No. Be happy for what you get. I am not a prude my any stretch of the imagination but I get annoyed with films adding nudity just to check a box of what has to be in the movie. What boggles my mind is so many people think the lead should be fully nude. It makes no sense.
share[deleted]
the concept behind making non art-house/documentary type movies is to tell a story
Do you need to see her vag to know tell the story she is an abused woman/porn star? No.
Be happy for what you get.
What boggles my mind is so many people think the lead should be fully nude. It makes no sense.
That was pretty genius making a quote into a hyperlink. Applaud me.
On really romantic evenings of self, I go salsa dancing with my confusion
[deleted]
I don't care whether she was naked or not, but you're arguing that a movie shouldn't show nudity in a story about a porn star. Its like a mafia movie without guns, it can still be interesting, but hardly completely realistic.
shareAmanda said she wants to keep this part of her body to her husband in the future...
What a ridiculous statement! The film "Lovelace" is ABOUT a porno actress; it isn't a porno film! And why would an established actress like Seyfried show her vagina in this mainstream film? Your argument is as silly as complaining that there were no real on screen murders in the "Saw" movies. don't worry, amanda seyfried shows ALOT in this film; if she showed what you wanted her to show, many theaters wouldn't even show this film.
"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'
[deleted]
well I understand your argument, but I think you're being a bit unfair with your judgement of the film. "Lovelace" is a pretty straight-forward celebrity biopic. it is well-made, and extremely well-acted by everyone involved. People shouldn't expect graphic sex and nudity from any mainstream film, or from any legitimate, known actress like Seyfried. i just think you watched this for the wrong reasons. altough i do agree that 6 bucks is ridiciculous for ANY on demand movie rental! I had no idea that they charged that much. I have to confess that after i saw "Lovelace," my curiosity was aroused, and i downloaded the original "Deep Throat," just to see what it was all about. Maybe you should go that route; i promise you, you won't be disappointed in any lack of graphic sex in THAT film. But don't expect Amanda Seyfried..Linda Lovelace was cute, but she was no raving beauty!
"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'
I'd rather see the breasts and lower dorsal of a pretty girl like Seyfried than full-frontal from some skank that REALLY looks like Lovelace. Even performing oral sex on man or dog, I doubt Lovelace had half the sex appeal of a genuinely pretty mainstream actress like Seyfried.
It does annoy me when actresses take a role and are not willing to do the nudity required. But I don't think THIS movie really required full-frontal nudity. It DID require some basic HONESTY, which is something it just wasn't going to get from the absurd, chock-full of lies "autobiography" it was based on.
It does annoy me when actresses take a role and are not willing to do the nudity required.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Lol, you're going a little overboard with that one. Asking for a full frontal in a film about a porn star is not anything like asking for real murders in Saw. I mean perhaps if that person you're responding to was saying Amanda should have done real penetration in this film, then you'd be on the same level.
My body's a cage, it's been used and abused...and I...LIKE IT!!
Its not a porn movie you goof.
"If only you could see what i've seen with your eyes"
Perhaps, if it was meant to be a blow-by-blow, as it were, film about the making of Deep Throat. It's not, it's about the actress who starred in Deep Throat.
That said, it certainly wouldn't have been terrible to have a re-enactment of the kitty shaving scene...
"At present nothing is possible except to extend the area of sanity little by little."
[deleted]