Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

Cleveronix A different way of telling a story

Bergorks If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

longcooljolie This movie caught my eye while I was searching Netflix for something interesting to watch on a Saturday night.People who have never seen one second of a porno movie know the name Linda Lovelace. Before watching this movie I'd never seen "Deep Throat" (still haven't) and yet even though I didn't really know what the real Linda actually looked like, when I recognized Amanda Seyfried as the lead/title actress, I went huh?As so many other reviewers have stated, Amanda is way too pretty and innocent looking for the role. For this reason, possibly the story focuses more on the emotional aspects of the trauma Linda Lovelace faced through her relationship with Chuck Traynor and dealing with the realities of becoming so famous for something as dubious as appearing in "Deep Throat." Had they used a different actress with harder edges, like Lindsay Lohan, the movie may have veered toward the grittier aspects of the 70s porn industry, but with Amanda Seyfried in the role the producers managed to make even a scene showing the filming of one of the "Deep Throat" scenes seem sanitized, in other words, "Lifetimed- up." Sharon Stone appears, unrecognize-ably as a brunette in the role of Linda's mother. Some of the movies best scenes occur between the mother and daughter, before and after her life-changing career choice. Hank Azaria also stands out as one of the producers of Linda Lovelace's most famous movie as he projects the right amount of tacky, '70s style smarmy charm. In the hands of a different director, like Quentin Tarantino, this would have been a way-different movie and would have had an NC-17 rating and would have showcased at least one scene of Linda Lovelace showing her signature talent. As it is, "Lovelace" is a movie that's almost tame enough to be shown on broadcast television. It still manages to be interesting though.

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.

James Hitchcock Linda Lovelace (1949- 2002) was one of the more unlikely celebrities of the early seventies. Her sole claim to fame was that she had starred in a pornographic film entitled "Deep Throat", a film which had for some reason become a media sensation and was screened across America in mainstream cinemas. Now I have never seen "Deep Throat", and would have little interest in doing so, so cannot speculate about just why it became such a phenomenon, but it was an undoubted success at the box office, where it may have taken as much as $600 million. (Exact figures are controversial because of claims that takings may have been exaggerated by the film's organised crime backers as part of a money- laundering scheme).Lovelace made a few more films in a similar vein, but none were a success, and faded from public view in the late seventies. In 1980, however, she returned to the popular consciousness with the publication of her autobiography, "Ordeal". Now a born-again Christian and an opponent of pornography, she claimed that she had been forced into making "Deep Throat" and its successors by her violent, abusive husband and manager Chuck Traynor, whom she had divorced during the interim. (Traynor subsequently married another porn star, Marilyn Chambers). In the film Lovelace is also referred to by her maiden name, Linda Boreman, and by the name of her second husband as Linda Marchiano, but for the sake of consistency I will refer to her as "Lovelace" throughout this review. Lovelace's allegations have been disputed, both by Traynor himself and by his associates, but this film takes them seriously. It is therefore divided into two parts. Part I tells the story of Lovelace's life as it might have appeared to an uncritical outside observer at the height of her fame. She appears to be a successful, confident young woman, happy in her chosen career as a porn actress and in her marriage. Part II tells the story that Linda was to tell in "Ordeal". In one respect Amanda Seyfried is perhaps miscast in this film; she is too attractive. For all her sex-symbol image, Lovelace was no great beauty. In all other respects, however, she is very good. I was not particularly taken with Seyfried in the first film in which I saw her, "Mamma Mia!", but most of her performances I have seen since then have impressed me a lot more, especially the one she gave in "Chloe". The structure of "Lovelace" means that she effectively has to give two different performances, and she copes with the challenge well. In Part I she makes Linda a curiously innocent figure, the happy-go-lucky girl next door who unexpectedly makes good. OK, she makes good as a porn queen, but this unorthodox choice of career never detracts from her essential niceness. In Part II she has to give a much more complex performance, showing how Linda was the victim of her abusive husband without ever making her seem too passive. Seyfried receives good support from Peter Sarsgaard as Chuck and from Sharon Stone as Linda's strict Catholic mother Dorothy. Stone's performance came as something of a revelation to me; in the early part of her career she had the image of one of the sexiest women in Hollywood, especially after the success of films like "Basic Instinct", so it was difficult to imagine her playing someone as sexless and puritanical as Dorothy Boreman. She clearly has a greater range as an actress than I had realised. The film implies, in fact, that Lovelace fell for Chuck, despite his obvious vulgarity and manipulative behaviour, precisely because he seemed to promise liberation from her austere, joyless upbringing. Much of the criticism of this film on this board has been directed at the supposed inaccuracies and inconsistencies in Lovelace's account of her life, but as I have never seen any of her films, never read any of her various autobiographies and have no idea whether or not she was telling the truth about Traynor and the making of "Deep Throat" I am not in a position to reach a judgement on these matters. As a portrayal of a deeply dysfunctional, abusive relationship, however, Seyfried and Sarsgaard do enough to make it convincing. Lovelace's allegations may, or may not, have been true; domestic abuse is undoubtedly all too real. This is a film that has the ring of truth. 7/10

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.