'It could ruin my career: Amanda Seyfried opens up about controversial nude scenes in Lovelace
 

Hope its a decent flick

She's been nude a bunch of times before. What's the big deal?

http://thsrv.com/hl/http://i.dailyma...39_634x824.jpg

"Geek chic: Amanda looked a far cry from Lovelace as she was spotted walking her God in New York during the week"

Doesn't anyone proofread any more? :error

I'm pretty sure I seen her bush in Bully already. Edit: never mind I'm thinking of bijou Phillips which looks exactly the same to me.

The fact that it went straight to video should be more of a worry for her career.

whoa!!!!

Anne Hathaway has been nude in a few movies, and she seems to be doing okay.

Her makeup artist should win an Academy Award.

I think the lesbian scene she did with Juliana Moore would be way more controversial.

Unless they address Linda Lovelace's scene in "Dogarama".

The movie must really blow. Check out all the names in the cast, and it still went straight to DVD.

http://movie-extra.com/covers/442473_3.jpg

That's not a fact. It's playing in theaters + OnDemand.

It would be bad if it was DVD only. It's not even on DVD.

It's a limited release. NY and LA. That doesn't count. And VOD is the same as straight to video.

Limited release in NY and LA means it'll be released wide later.

I'm not defending the movie but you don't know what you're talking about. There's tons of good movies that get released this way these days. It's a small movie and that's how they do it most of the time. Anyone that follows movies knows this.

I saw it. Lots of big names in the movie but is shot like a B movie. Of course they portray her as a sweet innocent girl who is oppressed by a man. :sleep There is absolutely no balance which would show she was responsible for the things that happened to her.

On a side note I have seen pics of Linda Lovelace when she was doing porn and she is without a doubt the ugliest famous porn star ever. :repuke

:bowdown Hail, Scruffy! :bowdown

Cool, Look forward to seeing it. Sucks they have her all innocent. From what I have read on her, She kind of reminds me of John Holmes in Wonderland. Like you couldn't ever really get the whole story from her.

They release wide later IF it does well. Any "same day as theater" on the VOD is a horrible dog. It did not test well, and they are trying to make a few bucks before people find out.

bitches, whores, fuckheads! what the fuck is that movie about? some fucked up whore made deep throat and now we have to piss ourself? i see that fucking movie everywhere, in newspapers, everywhere, just because stupid sharon stone plays there? or why? why the fuck i have to wake up daily and read something about this fucked up crap? if there was movie about gandhi, i bet it will get almost no attention, but now here is movie about this bitch who fucked herself to some money and what? fucking shit, hope it will be everywhere for free, this movie deserves to be super big fail! oh, man! end of the rant, but still, fucking shit, oh no, someone made movie about porn bitch! :upsidedow :uhoh:throwup

Watched it tonight on demand.

Decent production and cast, but I can't say I found much of a plot. It was one of those movies you watch once to say you did. I found Wadd, Boogie Nights or Wonderland much more entertaining by comparison. I would say that I found it more entertaining than those two Mallick produced porn industry movies from what I recall.

:2 cents:

She is fucking hot.

For sure. Shawshank barely made it to theatres at all..

he's just jealous as usual.

There was a movie about ghandi and it was nominated for 11 academy awards and won 8.

Deep throat was a very influential film in its time.

hmm that is cool :) looks like i have to check out the original deep throat at least to be more educated :)

That censor bar is thin as fuck.


I like big tits.


.

they're crossing streams

linda love
ok i can see that would be somewhat of a novelty.
but i always laugh when porn peeps are going to make the next biggest documentary about the porn business and all the drama and funny (to them) situations and o.d and suicides etc etc
like anybody really would watch a movie like that.:Oh crap

shes filming 6 movies right now, id say her career is just fine

Who would have thought that out of all the four "Mean Girls", she would have the biggest career?

I finally saw this today. I know one of the writers who consulted on this movie, Eric Danville. What a fantastic cast for such a mediocre movie. I didn't even recognize Sharon Stone as Linda's mother. I love movies about the Golden Age of porn, but this wasn't all that well made really.

The fact that they showed many of the same scenes over again from a slightly different perspective halfway through the movie reminds me of that classic episode of "All In The Family" where they show the events from Archie Bunker's racist p.o.v., Meathead's liberal p.o.v. and finally Edith's neutral point of view, but done without making it obvious that was what was happening and without the cleverness.

They left out a lot of interesting stuff about Linda, most notably the bestiality movie and the softcore sequel she made
to Deep Throat. I also thought that James Franco was mis-cast as Hugh Hefner, being a decade too young for the part to play Hefner in 1972. Oddly, Hef is one of the only people still alive who is portrayed in this movie. Some of the supposed South Florida scenes were also too obviously shot in California, based on the vegetation, the street number painted on the curb and the length of the house number as well. Sarah Jessica Parker's part as Gloria Steinem was also cut out of the movie despite remaining on some of the promotional artwork I saw. Hank Azaria's curly hairpiece to portray Gerard Damiano was also really fake looking.

Also just noticed in the end credits, there's some b.s. copout that says in boilerplate language- "The events, characters and firms depicted in this motion picture are fictitious. Any similarity to actual persons living or dead, or to actual firms is purely coincidental." Obviously this is not true. They are portraying real people and events and "firms" (if you want to call the shell companies mafia associates set up as firms) albeit depicting them with some considerable creative license and abridging in a watered down and lame way.

Don't think so. I'll see the movie anyway.

They don't always get wide releases, in fact most of them don't. I do know what I'm talking about, as I'm dealing with distribution right now for a small Indie film and have been for the past 6 months.

Movies that get limited release are usually shit or they're just doing the limited release so that they can qualify for festivals and awards season.

This will have it's limited release and then you'll catch it on Netflix or at the Redbox or as an iTunes rental (where this one is doing ok).

LOVELACE is not something people are going to line up to see. You might see a wider limited release, but I doubt even that. The numbers sucked.

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/limp-bo...174700056.html

So please, feel free to tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about...again.

Shawshank did have a limited release and then had a wide release. No sure where you get this from, but you're wrong.