This is a piece of junk that should tell the viewer a thing or two about the quality of the makers (script/ directing). So you have the violent husband talking about Linda Lovelace. The makers have a preference for people who weren't in contact with her at the time. So there is no Hugh Hefner, but there is the competition Larry Flint. Why? Maybe they weren't ready to play along with the moralistic theme of the poor lawmakers going against smut on TV. The husband is a pimp and Linda is used as a prostitute, yet the talking heads are edited to talk about photos and film which started some one year later.
The time line is intentionally twisted also. Linda Lovelace for President was made AFTER she decided to get out of porn and features some nudity and no sex, yet at some 14 minutes into the documentary she is shown talking how she'll be 65 and still willing to play in an X rated film.
One has to admire the hypocrisy: making a film about porn, talking about porn, yet you can hardly see a naked shoulder.
In short, this is an abusing documentary that prefers the first biography dictated by the husband to "Ordeal", published some two decades before this junk was made and in which Linda Lovelace gives more detail and less erotica. And maybe by 2001 it would have been known even in the UK that the polygraph is unreliable, or simpler: woo-woo.
Contact me with Questions, Comments or Suggestions ryitfork @ bitmail.ch