Plot: What’s it about?
The electoral process is soon to begin, as Americans vote a new President into the Oval Office. But in 1976, the general public had tired of the same old dull candidates. In order to provide an alternative on the ballot, a gathering of special interest groups tries to envision a new breed of candidate. After countless discussions and debates, an agreement cannot be made, as everyone has their own ideal nominees. But when someone jokes that only Jesus Christ or Linda Lovelace would meet everyone’s approval, a light went on and the candidate was chosen. As such, the campaign march for the world’s deepest throat began, as porn starlet Linda Lovelace ran for President of the United States. But even after an extensive tour of the nation, can Lovelace overthrow the political machine and take over the White House?
Can a movie about Linda Lovelace’s Presidential campaign be all that bad? Yes. This is one lame movie, with low brow humor, random pop culture references, and some of the least believable sex scenes ever seen. But Linda Lovelace’s persona here is so sweet, innocent, and beaming with pride, its hard not to recommend this release. After all, most accounts list her as someone who was impossible to work with and hypocritical, so this almost saintly vision is priceless. Lovelace is naked often in this movie and even takes part in some of those faker than fake sex scenes I mentioned. The humor in Linda Lovelace for President is satisfied to go after the usual easy marks, racial jokes, stereotypical portrayals, and random cameos, so don’t expect well thought out comedic material to appear. To me, Linda Lovelace for President might be bad, but it is a unique and rarely seen cinematic document, one worth at least a curious rental.
Video: How does it look?
Linda Lovelace for President is presented in 1.85:1 anamorphic widescreen. This is a decent transfer, a little worn of course, but still solid. The print shows signs of wear and tear, but the damage isn’t that bad, given the material involved. The colors held up well, so hues still have good brightness, while contrast has lightened a touch, but still looks fine. I wouldn’t call the image sharp, but detail is passable and only a handful of scenes look out and out soft. So this one is rough around the edges, but for a movie of this kind, we can’t ask for much more.
Audio: How does it sound?
A 2.0 stereo soundtrack is used and while passable, it is by no means memorable. But then most of the audio content is dialogue, so there isn’t much demand on the soundtrack. The vocals sound fine, a little thin at times, but acceptable. None of the other elements stand out, but most are well handled. This was never going to be a pristine, powerful soundtrack, but it sounds reasonable and that is good enough.
Supplements: What are the extras?
The lone supplement is an insightful interview with producer Arthur Marks, who provides some great memories of the production.
