redukjent If you want to watch this movie after reading Lovelace, you will be disappointed. It has nothing to do with the book.

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.

moonspinner55 "Inspired by" the lurid true story of Linda Lovelace (Marchiano-Traynor-Boreman), this is a rather sanitized portrait of the "Deep Throat" actress, whose appearance in the 1972 pornographic blockbuster made her a household name and movie-industry punchline. Lovelace's own book "Ordeal" was basically a checklist of horrors, including a marriage to sadistic manager Chuck Traynor, who abused her, pimped her out and, finally, cheated her out of her porno-biz earnings. Some of that material does indeed make it into "Lovelace", however the character of Linda (played by a well-cast Amanda Seyfried) has been made one-dimensional. She isn't coerced into her X-rated career, kicking and screaming; this Lovelace is--at least, initially--proud to be a desirable woman, eager to please, eager to be sexy and excited about being in the spotlight. At the film's halfway point, screenwriter Andy Bellin backtracks through the narrative and gives us repeat scenes with a less-glamorous undermining, showing us the fear and dread in Linda's life, who kept going back to coke-snorting Traynor because she had no money and nowhere else to turn. Unfortunately, neither side of the story is very convincing, at least not as presented here; the filmmakers are too warmly nostalgic for the era, and seem to have been smitten by other movies such as "Boogie Nights" that exalt in their themes, no matter how sleazy (there's also a dash of "Star 80" thrown in). The good cast includes a genuinely menacing Peter Sarsgaard as Traynor and Sharon Stone in a remarkable character-turn as Linda's rigid mother, but we never get a sense of Linda Lovelace as a used, ravaged individual. The production is too bright, too clean, and the people in Linda's world too nice, to pack the sort of punch Linda Lovelace the Author would have demanded. ** from ****

brchthethird LOVELACE is a competently made, but confused biopic about Linda Lovelace, star of the porn film DEEP THROAT. Among the positives in the film are the attention to period detail and the performances which are fairly good, if not too spectacular. For me, the real standouts were Peter Saarsgard as Chuck Traynor and Bobby Cannavale as some porn director/producer (can't remember the name). There was also a nearly unrecognizable Sharon Stone as Linda's mother Dorothy Boreman. There's also plenty of other recognizable faces in the star-studded cast, although at a certain point it began to take me out of the movie, especially with James Franco as Hugh Hefner. Anyway, the meat of the story is focused on the production of DEEP THROAT and Linda's abusive relationship with her first husband, Chuck Traynor. One thing I will say is that Peter Saarsgard does an incredible job playing a sleazeball and abusive creep. However, there were some misguided scenes later on where it looked like the filmmakers were attempting to give the audience something to sympathize with him over. Another thing which was kind of odd was that about halfway through the movie, it almost resets and retells what came before, only with more emphasis on the domestic violence which was hinted at earlier. The first half presents a mostly rosy portrait of the circumstances, while the second half removes the facade. I can understand why they did that, but it also messes with the pacing of the film, and if you really think about it the film doesn't cover that much material anyway so it almost feels padded, even with an anemic 90-minute run-time. Generally, the filmmakers do a good job of making you care for Linda, but they also gloss over accusations that her account might not have been completely accurate. This film takes Linda's word at face value, only alluding to the surrounding controversy in two scenes, one recreated and the other taken from archive footage of the Donahue show. And speaking of the final moments of the film, the visual effects team did an incredible job inserting Amanda Seyfried into an episode of Donahue, much like Forrest Gump was inserted into various historical footage. Overall, i would say the film is OK, but don't look for something extremely revelatory or particularly graphic. The film's simplicity and straightforwardness is also its undoing as it lacks a lot of dramatic heft in what could have been a brilliant character study. Serviceable, but flawed.