There are a number of reasons why I think that this film will not do as well as some people might think.
I believe it to be a worthy project, but it is one that has suffered a bit of controversy. Kate Hudson was the original choice for this project; ultimately, the part went to Amanda Seyfried.
I think she has the range and the acting chops, but she is simply too attractive for the part. They have given her a 70's hairdo and they have tried to doll her up in a way that will allow people to imagine her as Lovelace. The problem is, Lovelace was five years younger than Seyfried when she started to do her adult film work. She was no where near as attractive as Seyfried and had a much different look. Was that one of the reasons why Hudson (who is six years older than Seyfried) didn't do the film?
Much of this era is only going to be remembered by people well into their fifties. Is that a demographic you're going to chase with Amanda Seyfried and are people who are younger going to care? Given the violence and subject matter, is this really what people want to go see? If it is handled properly, it could be made into a great story.
The problem is, it's a Hollywood movie with a young star and a large cast. They're not going to spend a lot of time on Lovelace's bestiality loops or her drugged out lifestyle (if they do, my hat is off to them for taking that chance). Hollywood is too risk averse. Putting Seyfried in the role is a safe move. But finding a younger, less attractive actress would be too risky. And, in order to tell the story, they have to put this person through a long series of violent and degrading scenes. Glorifying her sexuality is probably not something they are going to try to do, given the fact that the American people can really only accept pornography in films as being depicted as degrading and horrible.
I also cannot imagine Hank Azaria in this film. He's a Hollywood heavyweight? Really? I must be missing something.