User reviews

It is debatable what differentiates a great film biography from the rest. Arguably, a great biopic embraces the complexities of a person's life while using storytelling to organize such intricacies. It makes the film's subject all the more intriguing.

Poor and mediocre biopics either become blatantly overwhelmed by a life's complications, or ignore them altogether. Unfortunately, "Lovelace" chooses to ignore, and consequently misses greatness.

The woman who was born Linda Susan Boreman, and would later be better known by her stage name, Linda Lovelace, lived a very complicated, and devastatingly sad, life. This film centers on the real life Lovelace's claims of being used and abused by her first husband, Chuck Traynor, and being browbeaten into the pornography industry.

Lovelace's allegations of spousal abuse have been disputed by some, and supported by others who knew her personally, but that's beside the point. The film was right in basing its narrative solely on Lovelace's side of the story, not getting bogged down by antipathetic discrepancies. Still, there were crucial parts of her life the movie should not have left out.

For instance, "Lovelace" strongly implies that "Deep Throat" was Lovelace's first pornographic film (untrue) and her last (also untrue). It doesn't mention a stag film in which she engages in bestiality with a dog.

In one of her four books (yes, she wrote four books), she claimed that Traynor forced her to act in such movies, which would have made a good case in this movie for how controlling Traynor was. After all, having sex with a dog, especially on camera, is not an action in which most would engage willingly.

I could go on about relevant moments of the real Lovelace's life that this movie chose to ignore. However, the primary faults of "Lovelace" lie not in what they left out, but in a questionable storytelling structure where the filmmakers obviously tried to be too clever in their narrative.

Basically, the first half of the film chronicles a 21-year-old, naive Linda Boreman (Amanda Seyfried) who lives with her strict, Catholic parents (Robert Patrick and a shockingly deglamorized, unrecognizable Sharon Stone) in Florida. A charismatic, 27-year-old Chuck Traynor (Peter Sarsgaard) spots Linda at a rollerskating rink and begins dating her.

While Traynor claims to own a bar and restaurant, young Linda doesn't realize he dabbles in prostitution until after they are married, and she bails him out of jail. Eventually, Traynor coerces her into performing sexual acts on complete strangers for money before taking her to audition for pornographic movies.

From here, the film chronicles the making of the notorious "Deep Throat", the rise of Linda Lovelace, and does more than hint at the unexpected cultural impact the film creates.

Halfway through, the film makes the mistake of jumping ahead six years later (I guess circa 1980), and showing a visibly disheveled Linda taking a lie detector test administered by a publisher (Eric Roberts) in order to assess the validity of her marital abuse claims in her new autobiography, "Ordeal". The film then jumps back 8 or 9 years to show many of the same scenes over again, except adding footage at the end of each scene actually showing Traynor physically and sexually abusing Linda.

Why go back and show these scenes? The lie detector scene would have made a good narrative framework, especially since you see Amanda Seyfried look so shockingly worn down. This is not the same doe- eyed, blonde hottie from "Mamma Mia" (2008), or at least it doesn't look like her.

The point is, though, that going back and retreading all the scenes feels like a waste of time. Considering the film's running time of 93 minutes, there is no excuse for retread, especially considering Sarah Jessica Parker's well-publicized cameo as Gloria Steinem was cut out of the film altogether.

However, casting was the film's main strength, which I initially thought would be its weakness. I had my doubts about Seyfried portraying Lovelace, considering that Seyfried is exceptionally gorgeous, and the real Linda Lovelace was (Is there any way to say this nicely?) not even close. Listing actresses in this review who bear a stronger resemblance to the doomed porn starlet would probably be insulting to them.

While Seyfried donned a shaggy brunette hairstyle and freckles to deglamorize herself, she still looked a lot prettier than Lovelace on her best day. Scenes such as low-level mobster Butchie Periano (Bobby Cannavale) arguing that she is not attractive enough for the porno he is financing appear consequently more dubious.

Still, Seyfried did well with what she was given. Her best scenes include the lie-detection test, a surprisingly touching moment with an unexpectedly cordial publicity photographer (Wes Bentley), and her begging her emotionally cold mother for asylum from her abusive husband. Another scene where she is raped by five men at Traynor's behest shows little, but is still hard to watch.

While Peter Sarsgaard is effectively charismatic as Chuck Traynor, he wasn't convincing enough during the abuse scenes. Every time he threw Seyfried around, his face looked as though he would apologize to her right after the directors yelled "Cut!".

Sharon Stone, as Dorothy Boreman, had the movie's best performance, and not just because she is indistinguishable from her more glamorous roles. The scene where she does anything but console a visibly frightened Seyfried makes her eerily believable, and surprisingly multifaceted.

While the performances were well done, and "Lovelace" successfully shied away from exploitation, it suffered from fractured storytelling, awkward editing, and the vague epilogue implying that Lovelace's life only improved before her untimely death in 2002 in a car crash. If you watch the insightful documentary "Inside Deep Throat" (2005), or read Joe Bob Briggs' excellent, astute retrospective on her life (http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-briggs042502.asp), you'll get a far more accurate, and grimmer, account of her life after pornography. It's sad, dismal, and, as "Lovelace" proves, a story Hollywood still does not want to tell.

It is quite surprising that sweet and wholesome Amanda Seyfried has been cast as legendary 70s porno star Linda Lovelace. Seyfried, whom we know better as ingénues in musical films like "Mamma Mia" and "Les Miserables," how could she pull this daring stunt off?

"Lovelace" tells of how young and pretty Linda Boreman, from a strict Catholic family, unlikely met and married a sleazy guy named Chuck Traynor.

First, she goes along with Chuck's wild idea to make a her a porn actress, exploiting a certain extraordinary talent of hers which would be the central theme of a little porn flick entitled "Deep Throat." She actually enjoyed the heady success of this stardom as Linda Lovelace, for a while at least.

In a sudden change of pace, the second half of the movie showed how Linda was abused by her husband, physically, mentally, sexually, financially. She quietly suffered this torture until she could not take it anymore and fights to get her old life back.

The acting of Ms. Seyfried was quite good, as she was able to convince us that she was Linda despite being cast against type. She will get us on her side before the film ends. People who watch this film expecting her to reveal more skin will be disappointed, as this Linda kept it pretty clean on screen. The image painted of Linda was actually very sympathetic as well, like it was all Chuck's fault. Ms. Seyfried played the perfect naive victim.

Peter Sarsgaard was effectively creepy as Chuck from the start. You really cannot understand how Linda would marry a guy like this. He could have portrayed being more charming in the beginning to convince us. But he looked like a creep even in that scene where he first met with Linda's parents (portrayed by Robert Patrick and a completely unrecognizable Sharon Stone.)

I think the main problem of the film was in its story telling. There was a very abrupt and stark transformation from happy Linda in Act 1 and sad Linda in Act 2. I think the director was trying to be stylistic about this, not telling these details linearly, instead going back and forth in time. I think this could have been told more effectively another way.

Lovelace is an odd film in that it's really two films wrapped into one. The first film is a rather light 70s set piece about the porn business very reminiscent of the film Boogie Nights, with great performances by Mama Mia's Amanda Seyfried (holding her own even though she is much too pretty to play Linda Lovelace) as well as Peter Sarsgaard as her creepy husband who has no qualms about prostituting his wife out for a buck. Sharon Stone is just fantastic as Linda's mother (you won't even recognize her) and Robert Patrick (of Terminator 2) as her father, and the supporting cast is also perfect, including Boardwalk Empire's Bobby Cannavale and even James Franco playing Hugh Hefner. There is a bit of foreshadowing about what the second film is going to be about, such as when Linda's co-star alludes to the bruises on Linda's leg and also some questionable looks by her husband, but otherwise the movie plays out as a strongly R-rated biopic delivering quite a few laughs.

Then, suddenly, we are thrown into the second film, a PG-13 Lifetime Network-like drama including violins playing. The second film retells the first film, showing the behind the scenes abuse Linda receives from her husband and portraying Linda as someone who is doing it all reluctantly and is trying to escape the porn business. The stark contrast between the second and first films would be more effective if the second film wasn't so formulaic--it even has a gift wrapped happy ending. I imagine the truth of Linda's life falls somewhere in the middle, with Linda's own bad judgment playing at least some part in her life's situation. Unfortunately, although Amanda Seyfried is lovely in the first film as the naive young newlywed getting caught up in the porn business, she isn't reinvented and just doesn't transcend in the more watered down drama of second film like, say, Charlize Theron was in the film Monster. There just aren't any great performance by anyone in the second film as a matter of fact and the scenes that are suppose to be brutal just aren't. When it comes to showing the ugly side of the porn biz this film peters out.

Lovelace, therefore, stands as a slightly above average and obviously heavily fictionalized biopic, when it could and should have been much more, if only some more guts were put into the second half of it.

Directed by the team of Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman, "Lovelace" is a short and not-so-sweet Hollywoodization of the real-life story of Linda Boreman, a.k.a. adult movie sensation Linda Lovelace. At 21 years old, she's living with her uptight parents (Robert Patrick and an unrecognizable Sharon Stone) when she meets charming stranger Chuck Traynor (Peter Sarsgaard). He's actually a pretty sleazy guy who finagles her into a job in porn films, specifically the landmark effort "Deep Throat". He also turns out to be an abusive monster, whose atrocities were recounted by Linda in her book "Ordeal".

With these Hollywood versions of such stories, it's always advisable to take them with a grain of salt. For one thing, even this viewer, who's not particularly knowledgeable about the adult film industry, knows full well that Linda did a fair bit more than just that one classic. "Lovelace" the movie actually leaves out some things to focus on limited story threads. The filmmakers try to be clever with their narrative by jumping back and forth in time, but this could only be confusing for some in the audience.

It's worth a look just to watch Epstein, Friedman, and company give us a look into the porn filmmaking scene in the 1970s. Time and place are well captured, but the soundtrack tends to get annoying; we don't need these constant reminders of when the story largely takes place. The film IS very slick, and makes its points in approximately an hour and a half, so it doesn't overstay its welcome.

The strength lies in the talents of the ensemble cast. Amanda Seyfried is appealing as the not-so-innocent but still endearing Linda, while Sarsgaard, no stranger to creepy roles, is convincing as the slime ball husband. Stone gives a creditable performance in a severely deglamourized role, and Adam Brody is a hoot as porn legend Harry Reems. James Franco is charisma-free and miscast as Hugh Hefner.

There is enough compelling material here for one to realize that a more in-depth recounting of the tale would be appreciated.

Six out of 10.

I attended Lovelace at Sundance not knowing too much about the story of Linda Lovelace. Linda Lovelace is the most famous pornography star of all time because of the film Deep Throat (1972) which became wildly popular with mainstream audiences and brought pornography into popular culture. More than an indictment of the pornography business, this film is an indictment and expose on spousal abuse. Linda married young and was sexually and physically abused by her husband throughout her marriage. She was forced into doing these films and acts. She eventually found the courage to leave her husband and wrote a tell-all which is what this movie is based on.

The way this story was structured keeps it interesting and revelatory, and tonally the film is in accordance with her life. Things start off happy and there are lots of funny moments but soon enough things take a turn for the worse and that is where the true drama ensues.

Amanda Seyfried may not seem like the right choice for the role but she handles herself and the material with ease. She does a fabulous job evoking a wide range of emotions and brings her performance to a previously unseen level (at least, from what I've seen of hers). Peter Sarsgaard naturally exudes kindness and charm, we are seduced by it as she is, yet when the time calls for it he is rightly overpowering and terrifying.

Directors Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman started off making documentaries that were both important and compelling. They made the switch to traditional narrative films with Howl which showcased their talent but Lovelace is further proof that they are multi-talented and continuing to grow in skill.

The film does leave out a few things, most likely for the sake of the narrative, Linda was forced to participate in several short pornography loops before she appeared in Deep Throat, including a bestiality film. She also made two movies after Deep Throat (including Deep Throat II).

The film has instant notoriety for its connection to Deep Throat and hopefully this will drive a bigger audience to it but it will likely gain some controversy as well for its association (in fact there was a small group protesting it at the premiere which is utterly ridiculous). I hope this film gets a large audience as marital abuse in its many forms is far too common a problem and needs to be brought to the forefront of discussion.

This bio film of Deep Throat star Linda Lovelace is more interesting than most user comments admit, though in the end as bad as they say.

Linda's lifestory is a chain of confabulation and reinvention, all lives are, a matter of how we view our selves after the fact and deciding on the value. She wrote apparently no less than three autobiographies, with the third one being the 'real' dark story of what happened to her.

So the 'rise' part of the film sees a wholly innocent, fresh young girl being enticed - so pure and shy she won't even take her top off as she sunbathes with a friend in her own backyard! Silly. But that is how she chooses to frame herself reminiscing in the bathtub.

The 'fall' shows those gaps of horrible abuse that were omitted in that first narration. But that is what she chooses to recall as years later she takes a polygraph test on the behest of the publisher of her memoirs. And that is how Linda has chosen to present her story in her own book, herself pure and corrupted by a crazed husband.

This is not to say that she's making everything up, just as we know she isn't completely honest. Truth is usually somewhere in the middle. We see the alleged rape at gunpoint, yet there's no mention of her seedier films which she had denied doing until proof showed up.

So a film worthy of the subject would show two Lindas at odds, a softer understanding of the effort of trying to decide just who you are: the one who (re)writes her story, and the one who is genuinely caught up in it.

Here we simply get Linda the victim. In the end, a cleansed Linda goes on TV to warn against abuse and to promote 'finding yourself'. The film tries to show this reinvention of self and memory by being itself reinvented halfway through, yet in the end plies the same manipulation. The film 'settles' on her story being real, and presents it to us as the life of Linda Lovelace, why, because it comes with positive value we'd rather remember.

The general quality of both the acting and cinematography is fair to middlin', nothing spectacular. Juno Temple, Sharon Stone, and Robert Patrick, however, all give notable performances as, respectively, Linda's buddy and her cold, distant, puritanical parents. LOVELACE captures the atmosphere of the '70s pretty decently. The story's broken up, and some of the time-lapses are quite jarring. Still, the flashbacks do allow for some elements of surprise if you're not already familiar with the details of Linda's life (as I wasn't).

The end of the film is what really redeems it. LOVELACE's best single aspect is its portrayal of the porno film industry and how the exploitation often goes much deeper than simply pressuring naive young ladies into being filmed doing things they loathe doing. There are, of course, many sides to any story: Some will like the slant LOVELACE takes; others inevitably won't. The makers of this film may have gone a bit too far in portraying Linda Boreman/Lovelace as a completely innocent girl-next-door who just happened to fall in with the wrong guy and his crowd, but I can see how that was hard to avoid.

Considering the subject matter, there is very little graphic sex/nudity, and it was obviously wise to avoid making an admonitory bio-drama about a porn star into a porno film in its own right.

Andy Bellin wrote the screenplay for this biopic-type film directed by both Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman which relates the life of Linda Lovelace, known as the queen of adult porn for her controversial role in the 1972 film DEEP THROAT and the writer of the confessional book ORDEAL which gave the public the 'real story' behind the girl who was Lovelace before she died in 2002 - the girl who is used and abused by the porn industry at the behest of her coercive husband, before taking control of her life. The film is basically divided into two parts - the fantastical story of a freckled face 'innocent' girl of strict upbringing who rises to fame by being the first porn star to perform fellatio on the screen and gained fame and stardom, and the second part of how this naïve girl was the victim of the abusive husband and porn industry until she gained the courage to marry and have a family and step out of the spotlight of her fame in Deep Throat.

And the manner in which the two views on the same girl are interconnected in the film is the strong point of the movie: the technique of show 'reality' while simultaneously depicting 'fiction' works well. The cast is strong: Amanda Seyfried does a star turn as Linda Lovelace (aka Linda Susan Boreman aka Mrs. Larry Marchiano) though much of Lovelace's life is omitted (her liver transplant, her messy divorces, her other films, etc); Peter Sarsgaard is excellent as the smarmy drug-addled Chuck Traynor, the man who convinced Lovelace to enter porn; Sharon Stone and Robert Patrick as her rigid parents; Juno Temple in the thankless role as Lovelace's only friend Patsy; and the porn guys - Chris Noth, Bobby Cannavale, Hank Azaria, Adam Brody as the well-endowed Harry Reems (though that of course is never filmed), Chloë Sevigny as a Feminist Journalist, James Franco as Hugh Hefner, fellow porn star Dolly as portrayed well by Debi Mazar, Wes Bentley, Eric Roberts, and Ron Pritchard as Sammy Davis Jr.! There are real taped interviews and comments by Johnny Carson, Bob Hope and Walter Cronkite which enhance the credibility.

The film closes with an interview after Lovelace has revealed her past in her best selling book ORDEAL - and at that point the film slides down the hill of Hallmark type feel good. An entertaining film about a name from the 20th century that deserves visiting despite the fact that it simply goes on too long.

Grady Harp

An impressive cast lending their talents to a fascinating story, Lovelace brings Amanda Seyfried, Peter Sarsgaard, Sharon Stone, Robert Patrick, Chris Noth, Adam Brody, James Franco and Eric Roberts together to portray characters in the life of Linda Lovelace, a one-shot porn actress that made headlines back in 1972 as star of the blue movie, Deep Throat.

Amanda Seyfried plays Linda, a shy and fairly innocent young girl who falls for Chuck (Peter Sarsgaard) , a mostly manipulative manager/pimp that eventually becomes Linda's husband. Lovelace begins shortly before Linda meets Chuck and establishes Linda's home life with her parents (played by Robert Patrick and an unrecognizable Sharon Stone).

We first meet Chuck as he lays eyes on Linda at a roller skating rink where Linda does an impromptu dance in front of the live band. Chuck woos the younger Linda using his charm and the alluring freedom of his adult lifestyle to eventually bring Linda to a point where she moves out of her home.

The inexperienced Linda is comfortable enough to have Chuck film her giving him oral pleasure and Chuck takes his Super 8 home movie to Butchie Peraino and Gerry Damiano (Bobby Cannavale and Hank Azaria) who are so enthralled with Linda's oral sex talents that they immediately get producer Anthony Romano to provide the funds to make a film that will eventually become Deep Throat.

We get a few topless scenes of Seyfried emulating the famous porn star of the era and enjoying her fame until everything falls like a house of cards due to Chucks violent manner and his insistence that Linda have sex with multiple partners for the purposes of his own financial gain and notoriety.

The film takes us beyond the filming of Deep Throat and we watch as Linda copes with how the film put a strain on the relationship with her parents and through her book deal and talk show circuit appearances where she vehemently denounced pornography.

Laden with a talented cast, Lovelace fails to either have audiences find fault or fall in love with our title character. Everyone in the production come across as characters rather than actual people so it is hard for a viewing audience to attach themselves – good or bad – to any of the competent actors that make up the casting call.

Directors Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman simply don't chisel away at the inner character or either Chuck or Linda with enough feeling to make this a well rounded bio-pic. Instead, it flat-lines with any pulse and does nothing more that attempt to be an exploitation flick about an exploitation flick. Even as the time is captured fairly well in the styles and moods of the early 70's, it ultimately fails in capturing much of anything else including our attention.

The final title cards might have been the most interesting revelations of the entire films. That Linda Lovelace died from injuries suffered in a car accident at age 53. That Chuck Traynor went on to marry another famous actress in the porn industry in his nuptials to Marilyn Chambers. And how the movie Deep Throat went on to become the most successful porn film of all-time raking in hundreds of millions while Linda collected less than $2,000 for her starring role.

If you have always been interested with the film Deep Throat or the incredible life of Linda Lovelace, you may want to seek out any of the documentaries or A&E specials on the topic. Because Lovelace will just leave you superficially satisfied.

www.killerreviews.com

...though honestly, due to it's jumping around in time, it was a bit difficult to follow. Overall, a stunning movie, a real wake-up call to porn of the 70s, taking such bright eyed youth into the seamy underbelly of the entertainment industry, but a more linear narrative might have worked a bit better. I loved Amanda as Linda, she did an amazing job. I just have am easier time watching movies that are less disjointed. Honestly though, I do hope Lovelace wins some awards. It is certainly worthy. Debi Mazar was stellar as always. :) Seriously, ten lines of text? I seriously said all I wanted to in seven. But what the hell, I will keep typing until it accepts my review. Live and learn, right? So they say...

I don't know exactly how faithful to the true story of Linda Boreman this film is, all I know is I was riveted by this heightened recreation of the unfortunate, sad life of adult film actress Boreman, whose screen name was Linda Lovelace. It brings to mind the even darker story of Dorothy Stratten, a similarily mistreated sex symbol documented in the film Star 80. Eric Roberts was a star in that one, and makes a brief appearance here, almost like a nod of the head to that story. Amanda Seyfried is achingly good as Linda, displaying a fragility and striking resilience in her excellent performance. At a young age, she's manipulated into certain things, namely appearing adult films including the infamous 'Deep Throat', by her abusive dirtbag boyfriend Chuck. Peter Sarsgaard is a slimy wonder as the ultimate trashy prick, putting her through some truly hellish times that take a long time to recover from. Sharon Stone is unrecognizable as Linda's uber conservative mother, and Robert Patrick gives buckets of emotion in his few scenes as her sympathetic father. Rounding out the all star cast are Bobby Cannavle, Adam Brody, Hank Azaria, Debi Mazar, Chloe Sevigny, Chris Noth and Juno Temple as various people orbiting Linda's sordid story, some helpful, some sleazy, all interesting. The one misstep in casting is James Franco as a baby faced Hugh Hefner, which brings you right out of the film. The core of the piece lies with Seyfried's assured, confident performance, and amongst all the glitz, scum, bells and whistles the filmmakers conjure up to try and pad the story, she always blessedly reigns it in to the singular plight of one woman in trouble. That takes talent.

Expecting to see something that resembled more of a Linda Lovelace biopic, I must admit that I was a bit disappointed to find out that "Lovelace" only examines a small portion of her life and the abusive relationship with her husband during the making of 1972's "Deep Throat" (arguably the most popular adult film of all time). But as I started watching this, my disappointment only grew as I witnessed what directors Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman had done with this material (material which had such dark dramatic potential) utterly mangling the construction of the story and, to add insult to injury, transforming this film into nothing more than a by-the-numbers, woman empowerment, Lifetime channel movie of the week…with nudity.

Not saying that Amanda Seyfried (who plays Linda Lovelace) and Peter Sarsgaard (who plays her husband, Chuck) don't do their best with the material given. They are actually quite good in this. And with the help of some excellent supporting work from the likes of Sharon Stone, who is almost unrecognizable as Linda's mother and Bobby Cannavale who plays a producer, the acting is the best part of this movie.

OK, so yes, James Franco is laughable as young Hugh Hefner, but the real black eye on the face of "Lovelace" has to be Epstein and Friedman's direction.

The following is a rundown of how Epstein and Friedman nearly single handedly ruined this movie; act by act: Act One: Cramming an insane amount of old television footage down our throats with the sole purpose of making sure we (the audience) realize that this movie is set in the 70's, the first 40 minutes of "Lovelace" tells the story of how Linda and Chuck meet, fall in love and how Chuck introduces Linda into the world of porn. Sounds interesting enough, right? Well, it would have been if not for direction that chose to outright disregard character development for an entire act. Example: Linda and Chuck fall in love in like 2 seconds. Next thing we know, its 6 months later and she's inexplicably on the set of "Deep Throat". Next thing we know, Linda is getting beat by Chuck. In other words, in the first half of this film, we have no context for anybody's motivations. We don't really get to see any conversations that have any sort of weight behind them or contain any real emotional transformations. And the fact that there is no back-story to be found for nearly half of this film, handicaps the viewers from becoming personally invested in any of the characters.

Act Two: The second act changes gears completely, as Epstein and Friedman attempt to push "Lovelace" into the realm of "dark-drama". Here we (the audience) finally get to see meaningful conflicts between Linda and her mother, Linda and Chuck, Linda and her Father and the producers and Chuck. And during these conflicts we actually begin to learn a little about each character's motivations and in turn, begin to sympathize with Linda as a person. The problem with act two is that all of these moments are shown via flashback, as Epstein and Friedman actually take us back to the beginning of the story and essentially fill in the character development blanks from the first act. But this backtracking shines as a prime example of too little too late, as many will have lost interest in the story itself by this point.

Act Three: From the momentum of the second act, I truly believed that "Lovelace" was on the upswing. Boy, was I wrong. At the point where we begin to catch a glimpse of a riveting film, "Lovelace" changes gears once again and irritatingly settles on a climax worthy of a Lifetime redemption movie of the week.

Final Thought: Within the second act (the fill in the blank portion of this film) "Lovelace" is laced with some dark and well filmed sequences. But by the time we get to this point, the lack of character development in conjunction with direction lacking in coherent construction, will have made it so that we not only don't care about the characters but the story as well. Overall, "Lovelace" is a misguided attempt at filmmaking and an outright boring look into the world of pornography. Oh, and not to make light of domestic violence, but if anybody tells you that this movie is on par with "Boogie Nights", you have my permission to punch them in the face.

":Lovelace" is a bibliography set in the early 1970's that follows the life of Miss "Linda Lovelace"- The first porn star in American History. The film is based on her story from when she was a teenager growing up in a strict Christian family with an ex-military sergeant father and how she went on the path to become the first pornographic actress to star in a feature length nude film. Throughout the film she becomes captive in an abusive relationship with her husband who forces her to keep starring in these movies threatening her life. The film stars some highly talented actors who all were casted excellently. Amanda Seyfried plays the raw portrayal of Linda Lovelace and by far steals the show! Peter Sarsgaard stars as Chuck Traynor, Linda's manipulative, evil husband who takes all the money she ever makes from doing pornography for his coke addiction. And Sharon Stone takes the role as Linda's protectively stubborn mother who forces Linda to stay with Chuck, for better and for worst. It also stars the likes of Chris Noth, Hank Azaria, and James Franco as the young, handsome Hugh Hefner! My only concern about this brilliantly acted, triumph story is who accurate the entire film is. At the beginning of the movie it says it was based on real events but I believe that to find out what it was like for Linda would be to read her novel "Ordeal" about her experience in the pornographic film industry and how she became a spokesperson for violence against women in the porn industry. All in all I do believe it is worth it to watch the film because it sends an important message in an intense way about male violence against women.

Whenever I come across a movie making unequivocal claims about an individual being the victim of human rights violations, I check into it. Physical abuse is a crime. Sexual slavery is a form of torture.

What I found when I researched Linda Susan Boreman (Lovelace) shocked me. The entire film is a fabrication. Fiction upon fiction with the sole aim of creating an emotionally compelling narrative.

Considering this, I cannot rate the movie other than as repugnant. It is profoundly disturbing that these people want to profit by further exploiting with a mockery the real suffering of real victims of real awful crimes.