Watch Lovelace For Free

Why so much hype?

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

As a young girl, Linda meets Chuck, a charming and gentle man, with whom she moves in and eventually marries. Her life seemed great but it all suddenly changes, as she is forced to work in the pornographic industry, forced to be a prostitute and suffer great physical abuse by the man who was supposed to give her everything. She faces a true ordeal but she's determined to get a true, normal life, eventually.This movie presents the most important events Linda Lovelace had lived in her "adventure" with Chuck and some that follow after it. Although I've never heard of her in real life, and thus I didn't know her story, this movie was very predictable most of the time, leaving much too little to the unexpected. It was also quite boring at some times, the overall sensation being not very pleasant. As a biography, it presented, with enough detail, the known events of Linda's life, but those weren't enough to create a great movie. It feels like a documentary, a bad one sometimes, not being able to send enough emotion towards the female protagonist, even when she was in deep pain.It's good if you want a graphic representation of Linda Lovelace's life and career, but as a movie, it's a bit of a letdown, for me at least, although I enjoyed Amanda's performance.

Fleeing her home and a domineering mother (Stone) in small town Florida, young Linda Boreman (Seyfried) shacks up with hairball cokehead creep Chuck Traynor (Sarsgaard) - a mysterious older man who is a hundred different kinds of bad news. She has been taught by her parents and Suburban American culture that sexual expression is bad - something she knows is not true and is especially not true to her.Her rebellion with Chuck is liberating at first but only insofar as she gets to have sex without guilt. Chuck proves to be more domineering than Linda's mom and more physically brutal in imposing his will upon her. In a financial jam he coerces her into appearing in pornography i.e. a film entitled 'Deep Throat'.The porn industry people Linda finds herself surrounded by are much like Chuck. The icky feeling they exude gives one the feel of emptying a cockroach trap. But for the first time in her life she feels special and even somewhat powerful after the unexpected hit she and the film become. Chuck remains abusive whilst mismanaging her career.The title of the film 'Deep Throat' alludes to it but no one will ever fully understand the phenomenon that was Linda Lovelace without seeing excerpts of a specific act this woman performed on screen. Even the seasoned pornographers who worked with her were utterly astonished by what she did and how she did it. It wasn't a magic trick or CGI but nobody could believe their eyes and the sense was the equivalent of witnessing a superhuman feat.

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.

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.