User Reviews

Spoiler Alert: The plot is simple. Linda has sex with a guy who "finishes" without her, leaving her unsatisfied. He then gets dressed and leaves as they exchange flipping each other off. After he leaves she turns to the dog for love. Where she was merely having sex with the aforementioned guy, she makes love to her canine companion. A lot of the cinematography is trying to capture how she has to satisfy herself with her human lover, but when it comes to having relations with the dog, it's between two lovers in contrast.

I won't get into the long story of how I saw this movie or it's moral implications one way or another. I wrote this review because I've seen the movie, happened upon a link to the IMDb entry of it, and thought I would add this for posterity sake and this IMDb entry didn't seem to do it justice. But I do think, as with Linda Lovelace's other movies, that she is an actual actress that can portray her part. As I said above, the point of the movie is she is a dog lover and this little slice of story is the contrast between human and dog lover in her life and I think the movie pulls that off.

She claimed to have been coerced into making this movie and denied it's existence. When this rare movie was brought to light, Linda finally admitted her participation but said her ex-husband forced her at gun point to star in the movie. As part of my viewing of the movie, we tried to answer that point and one good observation was made. She knew what she was doing and so did the dog. It wasn't the first time for either. And I think that was a major facet of this movie, maybe not intentionally so, but when someone heard about the movie it was natural to first wonder, does she really do it? And then if one sees it, then wonder turns towards does she like it? And that's the thing about this particular movie. If she's coerced, she is one of the best actors or actresses that has ever lived. She does not hold back seems very enthusiastic in what she does. She just doesn't seem reserved in anyway like you would expect someone who has a gun against their head would act. And if it was anywhere near the first time she ever committed such an act with a dog, it wasn't clumsy at all for either of them and that's odd. At least that's how it came off to me.

But there is one part when her human lover pushes her away like she's unequal to him and as if to say "I'm finished, stay down." Is it a sign of what was really going on behind the scenes and how she was viewed by those around her (as a sex object) or was it intentional to demonstrate the contrast between the human lover and the dog's relationship with Linda? It's hard to say.

That being said, there are three things that were kind of worth seeing the movie for. The first is for some reason I got a kick out of the music score they used. It's not the usual "boom-chakah-bow-bow" porn music of the 70s but a kind of whimsical, almost Disney like influenced light-hearted music. Very out of place and makes watching what's going on even more bizarre. The second thing is the scene between Linda and her human lover when they flip each other off. It's amusing. The last thing is Linda's acting job. She pulls off what the point of the film was trying to make (albeit a point that's hard to grasp considering the emotional juxtaposition most people will experience seeing something so taboo).

Other than that this movie doesn't really bring much to the table. I did give it a six overall because she does act in the movie and I think she actually pulls it off and the fact there is an actual point being made and not just a flick containing (interspecies) carnal relations. But it is a crappy movie otherwise.

I do consider this to be a must see for extreme video viewers like me. It's also probably a must see for those who are interested in bestiality or are interested in seeing all the legendary Linda Lovelace movies. For all others this review pretty much tells you everything you need to know so you don't have to bother.

I just want to add that I do not condone violence against women and a real man would never use his strength to force those that are weaker then themselves to be degraded. If it's true what Chuck Traynor did, may he rot.

yup...that's about it with DOG F!CKER. This notorious stag loop shows Linda Lovelace of DEEP THROAT fame coupling with a German Shepherd.

This short film starts out with Linda getting' boned by Eric Edwards, and then the pup comes in the picture. The good dog does his deed by first licking and then mounting a seemingly willing Ms. Lovelace...

Honestly - there's nothing all that notable about this film other than it's relative rarity - and the fact that it shows a woman having sex with a dog. It gets relatively good marks from me because anything involving a chick boning an animal is worthy of at least a 6/10 - and that's really all DOG F!CKER is worth. Not as notable as the Bodil Joensen films of the same "genre" - or any of the Euro stuff either...6/10

"Dog 1" is an American live action short film from 1971, even if some sources say it is from the late 1960s. Anyway, this one stars Linda Lovelace and shows her having sex with a dog. You probably heard enough by now and I can't really blame you. But who is the one to blame? Lovelace for starring in here? The director or her manager who may have coerced or convinced her? The people who are actually turned on by this? Or people in the following decades who took this as an inspiration to do their own animal porn? Maybe a bit of everybody I guess. I read somewhere that this one is forbidden because of the bestiality it contains and I would not be mad about it at all. There is no artistic impact to this little film in my opinion. It is just downright gross. And seeing that (according to IMDb) there is even a sequel for this one may be even worse than the existence of this one here, even if they maybe just kept filming and the sequel is probably even more difficult to find than this one here. If it (still) exists, that is. As for this first film, stay far far away. It's an abomination

I give this grainy flick a high rating just because it is so unbelievable: major adult star in a bestiality movie. It is very graphic: Linda is INDEED having sex with the dog in nearly every position one can imagine in a porn flick. There even is a minimum of a plot (very minimum). Not only is the flick grainy, but what few versions exist out there have no sound. I have read there are better versions with sound. That may or may not be important. Even the grainy stuff makes the point. For me it puts to rest any notion that she was coerced (not to say that didn't occur in other movies). Beastiality is mostly illegal now, so one must take care to view it. (It was made in a time when such things were more liberal). However I just had to view it for myself. My curiosity is sated.