JÄnis Locis Linda Lovelace is portrayed as a naive, stupid, childish little girl, who is completely oblivious of what is happening to her, in reality she was nothing like that, if you go and check out some of her ''work'' you will see that, she was a wild woman, who was more than happy to star in all kinds of films, ''Deep Throat'' being the least bizarre of the lot. Amanda Seyfried is not the best actress to depict Linda, since Linda was not a very attractive woman, Amanda is way too cute and girly for the role. The whole story seems quite comical, since Linda was not alone, she had lots of friends there in the industry and Chuck could just keep on abusing her and nobody even noticed that, in reality that probably did not happen, as we know the real Linda used to change her story a lot, so it is very hard to tell what is actually real as far as these details go. Aside from the reality aspect of this film, the movie seemed all over the place, yeah they tried to do all these timeline jumps, but they were not bringing anything exciting into it. It feels like the creators of this film did not know how to portray the Linda nor how to tell the story efficiently, so they just took one of the possible truths of the story and made a movie on it. Overall, i would not say it was the most horrible movie out there, but it certainly was not anything special, very illogical and false at moments. Also it seems that people expect way more nudity and sex scenes in the film, i can tell you what - if you are going to watch this to see sex scenes with Amanda Seyfried, do not watch it, because there are none, you are better off watching the real 1972 movie "Deep throat".

siderite The movie is nothing to tell your parents about (he, he), but it accurately presents the drama of Linda Marchiano, a girl who gets seduced by a guy who later proceeds to manipulate, train and use her to his own ends. Becoming a celebrity for her Deep Throat porn films where she starred as Linda Lovelace, she became known for that alone, even if she actually spent only 17 days in the pornographic industry.So, if you wanted to see Amanda Seyfried naked and doing the nasty, you're out of luck. There are very few scenes that are sexual in nature, the movie focusing on the person that Linda was and her actual life. An interesting adaptation of her own book, called Ordeal.Bottom line: A lot of people brought their talent to tell the story. Just look at the cast, where most of the people there had only secondary roles. It is true, it is a bit formulaic, they do this kind of casting avalanche thing when they want to bring gravitas to a subject. In the end it is not a bad movie at all, but not terribly exciting either. It is the very definition of a biographical drama.

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.

Bryan Kluger 'Lovelace' is the first of two films this year based on the porn phenomenon Linda Lovelace, who rose to superstardom in the early '70s with the film 'Deep Throat'.This bio-pic might've been a disaster, but directors Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman have made an engaging and entertaining look at the former Linda Boreman's life, even if her situations are difficult to watch at times. The acting is spot-on, and the movie has a killer retro soundtrack.You've probably heard the story of 'Deep Throat', one of the first porno films to include a plot, characters and a decently-sized budget. Shot for around $50,000, the movie has made hundreds of millions in profit over the years.We first meet Linda (Amanda Seyfried) as a 19-year-old girl living with her parents (Robert Patrick and an unrecognizable Sharon Stone) in Florida, where she and her friend are hired as Go-Go dancers at the local skating rink. A man by the name of Chuck Traynor (Peter Sarsgaard) takes a liking to her, and the two eventually run off to get married. After Chuck realizes Linda's talent, he brings her to porn producer Butchie Periano (Bobby Cannavale) and director Gerard Damiano (Hank Azaria). As we already know from history, the movie they made together became a huge success.However, as we see in a time-jump several years forward, Linda later wrote a book called 'Ordeal' that chronicled her life with Traynor, who she claimed beat and tortured her, and forced her into slavery and gang rapes for money. He also handled all her financial affairs and never let her see a dime from the movie. It's a sad and depressing story, but not without a light of hope as Linda escapes Traynor and becomes an activist for women's rights who spoke out against pornography until her untimely death by car crash in 2002.The film is similar in structure to 'Boogie Nights'. The first section is fun with lots of '70s music, dancing and parties. Then, the second half is a dark downward spiral as these successful people hit rock bottom, and Linda is forced to perform wretched acts on strangers by her abusive husband.Seyfried brings Linda Lovelace to life. She's elegant, attractive and damn fun to watch. The actress captures the emotional depth of this sad tale. Sarsgaard pulls off one of the slimiest characters ever put to film. Not once do you like this guy. Sharon Stone is the wild card here; she's physically unrecognizable, but gives one hell of a supporting performance. Cannavale and Azaria turn in hilarious supporting roles, and the movie also has cameos by James Franco (as a young Hugh Hefner), Wes Bentley, Eric Roberts, Adam Brody and Juno Temple.