MamaGravity good back-story, and good acting

Spidersecu Don't Believe the Hype

RipDelight This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

Lucia Ayala It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

Straker17 Lovelace is an intimidating film. Pornography is a touchy subject, and some people will turn away simply because of the subject matter. It really is a shame that things happen that way because you do not know what you might get out of something. This movie feature many amazing performances. Amanda Seyfried effectively portrays both Linda's naive nature to the porn industry and the brutal reality that befell her real life counterpart (and she's pretty easy on the eyes). Skaarsgard also does a great job as Chuck Traynor, and both of them are held up by a great supporting cast. The film is well shot and for the most part well written. The dialogue never feels unintentionally akward, and the film is so tastefully done to the point that you never feel uncomfortable from what is shown onscreen, which can be either a positive or a negative depending on who you ask. Where the film falls short is in the substance of the film. After watching the film, I wasn't particularly affected by anything that I saw, and I came out wanting a bit more out of it. After watching the film, I knew about Linda Lovelace, not knowing Linda Lovelace, which is what the best biographical films do.

kiowhatta I could hardly be bothered dignifying this movie with a review except to say that it is yet another piece of misandrist propaganda that attempts to have us believe that Women are simply victims of evil, manipulating men, who are one-dimensional brutes. Nowhere will you find a REAL film that truly represents the power dynamic that exists in gender relationships - The truth that women, if they choose, can ruin and/or hurt a mans life by many means. Violence is only one way of inflicting pain upon another person. And the Straw feminists have infiltrated the mainstream media and domestic violence industry to spread their message that all men are dangerous thugs, who have no right to express anger, protect themselves against the myriad of ways women can besmirch a mans name.They have the gall to lay down how a man should behave even if he's been humiliating, or even worse, attacked. This movie deliberately portrays Lovelace as a naive, innocent, girl who just wants to express herself, yet she is supposedly so doe-eyed, so wholesome and virtuous that she is totally taken advantage of by those around her, so tainted by rose coloured glasses that she didn't realise what was happening? The truth is the sex industry exploits both MEN AND WOMEN, Women prey on lonely men who are to frightened to approach a woman they are interested in, because 9 times out of ten they get abused and shamed, as if saying hello and introducing yourself to a woman were a crime. They take advantage of a mans need for social contact and female connection. On the other hand women are sometimes forced into 'working' in the sex industry against their will, but often of their own free will. This film does the real dynamic between men and women a huge disservice once again by portraying women as harmless little flowers and men as psychopathic brutes. The writers, editors etc, should be shamed of themselves for copping out to populist gender stereotypes. Those who know the real history of LL know that she changed her story, changed her excuses and blamed those responsible. There were more incantations of Linda than there were days in the month. Enjoy your revised dumbed down movie. Victim Feminists will see this as historical fact not lazy by the numbers movie making.

mpaulm2002 I watched this movie mainly for two reasons; Amanda and the fact that it was about the porn industry. Overall it was a good movie with great acting by Amanda especially. However, towards the end it kind of fell apart. I knew nothing of Lovelace before this and so when it said at the end that she spoke against porn and abuse for 20 years until she died in 2002 two things hit me; 1) her crusade against porn failed and in fact the industry has grown massive, globally since 2002. 2) If she fought against porn and this was a movie to show her life and how badly porn affects it, why have porn IN the movie. I think it hurt her cause a bit because a lot of people will watch this movie just to see Amanda naked in it.

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.