The Linda McCartney Story

This was such a great movie, I am left speechless. Elizabeth Mitchell and Gary Bakewell (once again portraying Paul with sheer brilliance) make this a movie not to miss! The love these two people shared is so brilliantly displayed by these two leads as is the conflict in the later years of the Fab Four. You do NOT want to miss this one!

I didn't like this movie. First of all, I don't know what everyone likes about Elizabeth Mitchell. She annoyed me and she looks like an American TV film actress, not like Linda McCartney. Linda had a certain class about her that Mitchell doesn't have, she's just an over-acting actress while Linda was a personality. Second of all, I really disliked the way John and Yoko are being portrayed in this movie. They were people, a couple, just like Paul and Linda, not devils. And than there's this... Why is it called the Linda McCartney Story, when according to the movie, after she meets Paul, it's not her story at all anymore? Like people have said before, everything Linda did for animal rights and her veggie actions and all that, gets mentioned once. Once! In one sentence! Now excuse me, but that seems to me to be a huge part of the Linda McCartney story. After Linda meets Paul, it's his story that seems to matter the most in this movie. Like when he gets arrested in Japan. When they get back, Paul says to Linda "I know it was harder on you". And we, as viewers, should know that as well, since it's Linda's story. But we don't! We see more of Paul as he's in prison, we only get one brief shot of Linda and the kids in the hotel. I thought this was a badly told story that doesn't do any of the people involved just. I hope Paul never had to see it.

I am not very fond of biographical made-for-TV movies. But once in a while some surprises me. And I wanted to watch this movie from a very long time as I knew about Linda McCartney since I like some of the Beatles' songs.

The movie is about Linda McCartney, who in the 1960s and 1970s was a professional photographer who used to photograph lots of famous singers of the time. One day casually in 1967, in an English music club she meets the man of her life Paul McCartney. Then the story is told in flashbacks from when they married to her death in 1998. And in the meanwhile she met lots of famous artists and musicians.

The acting is good (despite the only famous cast member is George Segal as Lee Eastman). I also appreaciated that the movie wasn't too harsh when it portrayed Linda's last months of life. It focused on them in a peaceful way and I liked it this way. Not an exceptional biographical movie but still very good. And you don't have necessarily to be a Beatles fan for liking it.

Gary Bakewell is really trading in on his resemblance to Paul McCartney being as this is the second time that he has played the man. He also does a credible job at it.

The title of this movie is a little deceiving as it doesn't really tell the story of Linda, but more about her marriage to Paul. There is only one mention in this movie of her famous vegitarianism and no mention at all of her animal rights advocacy. It is a shame as these are some the things that defined Linda as a separate entity from Paul.

The love story between them is, as always, inspiring and Elizabeth Mitchell does a good job as Linda. While the flow of the story is a bit disjointed, there are some funny moments in the script as well as some revelations about her pre-Paul life (sexual encounters with Jim Morrison and Mick Jagger) that are interesting none the less. If you want the real Linda story though, you may have to get it from one of the bios written about her but not this movie.

You already know Linda McCartney's story don't you? Well, of course you do. Did you want to watch this movie to learn the whole story? Sorry, no such luck! This meandering rambling, shallow, no warmth, no depth 'story' will not tell you anything you did not already hear in the media over the years. Her activism? Her vegetarianism? None of that seemed to be in this story, tho' it was mentioned in the advertising trailers, which, by the way, were not in the movie. This 'story' jumped back & forth, back & forth from decade to decade to decade: o, am I getting dizzy! The way that you could tell you were in a different decade was the fact the Linda & Paul went from long hair to short hair back to long hair & back again. O, there seemed to be some information bubbles that were in the tiniest font possible which stayed so long on the screen that if you blinked it is gone! The producers ALL seem to ASSUME that everyone can see 20/20 just like they do (NOT!) Why do these people assume that the 70 million member strong Babyboomers who have now all become 40 years old & up, who now all have to wear corrective lenses, if they did not before like the rest of us, can read this slightly momentarily brief second on the screen information bubbles in the worst contrast between colors to be able to read the information that also hopped from corner to corner to corner? The most love & depth of this movie is the 'nude love scene' (which added nothing to the story, except turns you off)with the Jim Morrison character, whom you knew she did not love in the 1st place. The story had no plot, nowhere to go. You already know that Linda had died a couple of years ago. The 'plot' was so 'well-developed' that you could not tell that Linda & Paul had more than 2 children, since that is all they showed until the very last scene when the family was @ the graveside. If you really, really want to know the whole love story, you have to wait until Paul writes the book, if he will. Well, so much for the 'hollywood' version!