Discussion in 'The Howard Stern Show' started by FCCstandards, Aug 21, 2013.
Their both available on demand, I just want to know which is more spank worthy
The naked scenes are on porn tube sites
Be right back
They are both horrible movies but The Canyons has more nudity and shockingly more sex scenes which is odd when you consider Lovelace is about a porn star.
Seyfried's boobs are a notch above Lohan's though.
Lindsey's done some hard living.
I remember years ago seeing an old 8mm stag movie with Lovelace getting fucked by a large dog....The smile on her face doesn't look like she was forced into anything
After seeing both actresses topless in these two movies I came to the decision that Amanda Seyfried's tittays look better than Lindsay Lohan's.
Haven't seen it but I believe it. Meth has taken the fun out of Lohan's fun bags.
Lovelace was boring as fuck. How they could do a movie about Linda Lovelace -- this tragic figure who brought cock sucking into pop culture -- and make it boring is pretty hard to do.
I almost chose one of them movie's but decided to choose mud with Matthew Shirtless, the movie is awful, I fell asleep at the end it was so bad.
Amanda's rack looks better in Chloe. Also because she was finger banging Julianne Moore
it has a pretty good cast...too bad they fucked it up.
I think I'm still partial to Lindsay's tatas
Lindsay's boobs look sad in that interview with the Negro Woman From The South.
Someone post a link so we can compare.
If anyone can do an NSFW tag of their tits for comparisson
Lambert posted the nudes of both movies awhile back.