Tedfoldol
everything you have heard about this movie is true.
Allison Davies
The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.
Chantel Contreras
It is both painfully honest and laugh-out-loud funny at the same time.
sionsono
This movie is all wrong. I wonder why they even thought about making it if it wasn't going to follow the story told in the book by Linda Lovelace. Oh, I guess I do know! It was made the way it was because if they put the truth in the movie it wouldn't sell, because the truth in the book is just too heavy to make the general public buy and enjoy it. Making up a story just to sell is worse than not talking about the story at all.Lovelace met Chuck through Betsy, and her parents were that tame towards her. This movie makes it seem as if Chuck really did love Linda and suffered for her, which is not true at all. The movie doesn't explain the fact that Lovelace was forced to marry Chuck, and it isn't chronologically right. Chuck made Linda sell her body way before he even thought of forcing her to be an actress for the movie Deep Throat. He made her sell her body all the time, and her clothes weren't beautiful like they showed on the movie: most of the time she wore jeans and a shirt because she would never touch the money she earned being forced to sell her body. Even if they couldn't put such things in a movie, they could at least make the character Linda talk about it.Chuck forced Linda to do many 8mm movies before deep throat where she had to have sex with animals and women, and Hugh Hefner was one of the people who wanted her to have sex with a dog in front of him, his sexual interest in Linda didn't happen only because of Deep Throat and they didn't have sex like what was showed in the movie: Linda was being raped by Chuck in a pool when Hugh joined the gang rape. Chuck would beat Linda all the time they'd have sex, because he was a sadist and this was the only way he could do it, they sugarcoated their relationship so much in this movie it was really better if it didn't exist.I think the real Linda Lovelace doesn't deserve to have her story twisted that much just so the public gets sad about what happened to her because they don't know even half of the things she went through. They made it look as if escaping from Chuck was the easiest thing Linda could ever do when it was not. He wouldn't leave her alone. Never. He would watch her being raped through a peephole so that she couldn't escape. He would make her show her boobs to drivers while they were traveling. She made her put silicone that damaged her boobs forever. He forced her into doing so many things that aren't showed here. No one EVER beat Chuck Traynor to defend Linda Lovelace. People were afraid of him. Linda suffered so much and all they showed in the movie was "the good part of her career" and her crying a little to her mother so that she could spend some time away from Chuck. This movie doesn't show just how much she suffered both physically and mentally. This movie doesn't show how much Chuck Traynor degenerated Linda Lovelace calling her ugly and beating her and pointing guns at her head every time she spoke up about not wanting to do something. This movie doesn't show the fact that Chuck forced Linda to have sex with women just because this was something she never thought about doing. This doesn't show the fact that Chuck gave Linda a puppy just because he wanted her to have sex with it. This movie doesn't show the fact that Linda was hiding in Betsy's house and Chuck threatened them with a bomb. This movie doesn't show anything.This movie is a joke, really. It deserves 0 stars and I feel relieved that Linda Lovelace isn't alive to see that. I think it'd make her feel so much worse.
trashgang
I came across this flick while searching for James Franco. So I came across About Cherry (2012) a flick about a young girl falling into the traps of the porn industry but sadly About Cherry misses it's aim. Lovelace came a year later and again Franco is just in it for a few minutes but that didn't bother me because being grown up in the seventies I still can remember those 'dirty theatres' at my hometown. It was full bloom porn that people were attending without bothering who could see you walk in, can't figure that one out nowadays. The seventies were the heydays of porn and the most notorious flick must have been Deep Throat (1972). The main star was Linda Lovelace. Sadly people not interested in flicks doesn't know what happened with here and had other things going on in their mind watching her but her life was one piece of sh*t.This is exactly what this flick shows from being a girl next door girl to be found by Chuck Traynor (Peter Sarsgaard). he was a nice guy but once shown how to have sex Linda became a victim of the brutality of Chuck. She was raised to obey your husband and that was what she did falling into the porn industry. Only appeared in 8 flicks she the most famous porn star of her time. Strangely this flick also gave some controversy as did Deep Throath due the fact that Amanda Seyfried was going to play Lovelace. She's not known for taking on that part of roles but she did fine and I was surprised that she even went naked. Some do say that the story shown isn't correct but it do shows how the industry worked and how some girls were threatened. I did like it to see the story behind Linda how becoming famous and how she ended her career moving on for 20 years against the porn industry and violence at home. Towards the end you will see the real Lovelace who died in 2002 due injuries at a car crash. Well acted and good story as simple as that.Gore 0/5 Nudity 1/5 Effects 0/5 Story 3/5 Comedy 0/5
skeptic skeptical
I was prepared to write a more positive reaction to this movie, praising Linda Lovelace as a feminist heroine of sorts, but then I saw all of the negative reviews revealing that she wrote multiple autobiographies and changed her story every time. So as much as I would like to believe this version of the story, I am now inclined to think that this was an image-rescuing effort on the part of opponents to pornography who see this subculture as highly destructive to women. I am not saying that I disagree, but at the same time I surmise that not all porn stars are coerced to do what they do. Some are probably nymphomaniacs who enjoy what they are doing. Was Linda Lovelace the victim depicted in the second half of this biopic? Hard to say. I mean, she did agree to play the lead role in Deep Throat. No one was holding a gun to her head at that time. What really happened? Who really knows? Would the story be more appealing if things really happened this way? Or if she freely chose to be a porn star? Was her life in danger when she attempted to stop? It seems very convincing, but again I have no idea.The quality of this production is standard for made-for-television movies. Certainly watchable enough, but not the stuff of great art. The story makes a complete about-face half-way through, up to which it looks as though Linda is making choices for herself. Then there's a strange "revision of history" twist, where the abusive relationship with her partner (and manager) is reinserted into the narrative. Could be creative if more carefully constructed, but here it seems a bit sloppy.
Johan Dondokambey
The story reveals the nature of the real life figure n such a nice way, depicting three separate perspectives of how people around her see her life; how people see the fun and glamor and sex, how they see the harsh domestic violence and forced submissions, and how they see the struggle Linda made to be rid of Chuck. The first part goes on as many other similar movies although with less sharp screenplay to expose more on it. The second part feels just right although the movie feels a little less confident about using the variation in camera angles. The last part unfortunately doesn't really get to be dramatized as much as the first two parts. This would be nice to hold the authenticity, but it's impact gets reduced compared to the first two parts. The acting in general is a decent work in overall. Amanda Seyfried did quite well on her part and confident about her body. Peter Sarsgaard repeats the charm he played in An Education, changing only his accent and his facial hair in doing so. Having great talents like James Franco, Sharon Stone, Juno Temple and Bobby Cannavale sure does increase the movie's acting parts, even if the actors only have less significant parts.
