Lovelace

The film wasn't exactly great; many aspects could have been approached and executed differently and better. However, as a brief trip back to the 70s, when porn movies used to be scripted, it worked fairly well. I believe anyone who hasn't seen Linda Lovelace's only film has at least heard of it, and here the audience got a bit of context. Linda's life and this venture weren't a comedy, but when it comes to porn, for me, it's always a two-sided coin. One side is obvious — the purely practical. The other side is humor. Except for that repulsive kind of pornography meant to humiliate and harm the unfortunate woman led into it by a terrible agent (read: jerk), there's usually something that makes me chuckle. I can't deny how disappointed I was when Linda spoke out against my favorite industry after making a whopping $1,250 from it. Well, it takes all kinds, right? :-) / Lesson learned: If you're shooting a film with scenes involving limited access to air, go for the actress with bulging eyes. (2022.07.03)

If you skimmed over a biography of Linda Lovelace anywhere on the internet, you’ll get a more accurate picture of her life than this very simplistic TV portrayal. The only things the film can boast is not its confusing and haphazard time structure, but the solid period atmosphere and the very good performances. Other than that, it’s one cliché after another that won’t make you sad by the fate of the protagonist, but by the way it ignores many controversial facts. At least I enjoyed it a little as a fan of Amanda. 45% (2019.09.15)

English translation: The Czech title may lead many viewers to think it is a shameless film full of sex and provocations. It is exactly the opposite, Lovelace is a superbly made biographical drama, with excellent performances by Amanda Seyfried and Peter Sarsgaard. Amanda used to annoy me a lot, but gradually I have reconsidered my attitude. Chloe and Lovelace convinced me of her talent. I was most surprised that I did not recognize Sharon Stone at all. (2015.01.07)

Is this film trying to break the classic structure of a linearly narrated biopic? It wasn't necessary. The story of Linda Lovelace is not such a fundamental story that it needs to be told twice in one film. It's up to the viewer which version they choose, of course, but if we were to experiment with viewer interactivity, the Deep Throat story really isn't the best material. Why, you ask? Because it's too simple. (2017.02.08)

Acting performances definitely need to be highlighted because without them, the film would be forgettable. Amanda Seyfried has already been mentioned, although she is, of course, more beautiful in comparison to Linda. Next to her, Peter Sarsgaard cannot be overlooked, as he is simply demonic. However, the surprising performance was Sharon Stone, Linda's mother, whom I must admit I did not recognize. She played wonderfully and is equally demonic. Robert Patrick also presented himself excellently, occasionally taking on interesting roles. I could continue with the actors - James Franco, Chris Noth, Hank Azaria, or Juno Temple. Some in less traditional roles, but with even more interesting performances. Those performances are worth watching, although the story itself doesn't shine as much, some women may start to appreciate their partners more. Or finally escape from them... More: http://www.filmovy-denik.cz/2013/09/lovelace-pravdiva-zpoved-kralovny-porna.html (2013.09.01)