The Linda McCartney Story (2000)

Best movie ever!

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

I won't comment about the overall production values of this movie (other than to commend the acting jobs of all of the players), but as a documentary it really fails, and sells Linda McCartney very short. It could have been titled "The Mrs. Paul McCartney Story", or better yet, "The Mrs. Beatle Story".Linda McCartney was a lifelong photographer of some repute, yet none of her photographs are shown or talked about. We get to see the break-up of the Beatles up-close, yet the details of Linda's life before and outside of her marriage to Paul McCartney are almost entirely omitted. Unbelievably, Linda's work for animal issues and vegetarianism are barely mentioned. These activities are what defined Linda McCartney (or, at least, how she defined herself), yet more time is devoted to reproducing Beatles recording sessions than to dealing with them. Linda stated during her lifetime that motherhood was her most important job, but we see virtually none of her relationships with her four children.This movie was a real disappointment. Less a tribute than an insult to the innovative and influential Linda McCartney.

When this movie was first broadcast, I refused to watch it. I assumed it would be insulting to the memory of Linda. I assumed they would have a lot of long, personal conversations between the two leads, that no one could really know about, except the two of them, themselves. If it were written by Paul, then I could believe it, but as it was not, I did not want to get upset by a lot of baseless fabrications.So, four years later, (last night), it appeared on the Lifetime channel, and as I was unable to sleep, I decided to watch it.It was not as bad as I thought, but I was disappointed that it told nothing of all of Linda's accomplishments, on her own. I thought the lead actors did a good enough job, weighted down as they were, by the material.The obligatory scene where Linda gets upset by the bad press after she appears with Wings seemed included just to prove that it was not HER idea to force herself on stage. I was at their first concert at the Cow Palace, in 1976, and even though I was one of those girls who mourned his marriage, I couldn't help being caught up by their obvious love for each other. The local press was merciless, and I began to really feel for her, then.She was a great mother but they barely touched on that. Her photography was excellent, but again, it was not given much more attention than as a way to accomplish her apparent goal of sleeping with rock stars. So what if she was a groupie? It was a short period in her life, and certainly not the most interesting part of her life story. Her photo of Paul in "Rock and Other Four Letter Words", is one of a kind. I believe she said she took it as she told him she was pregnant. Hilarious! That would have been a good scene in the movie.They should have shown how they raised their kids to be good, decent people.There is a momentary look at a car taking them to school, but that scene is actually focused on John's death, and the McCartney kids are just decoration.What happened to their quote, "We don't eat anything that has a face"?When the movie ended, I was sad for her, because of what I already know about her, not because of anything in the 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!

To me, most TV-movies seem like they are made by the same production company, with all the elements shoved into a big blender and the results poured into various standard molds. They may look a little different, but the taste is usually bland and generic. Over the past couple of years, several TV flicks with a rock & roll theme have been especially disappointing. Happily, 'The Linda McCartney Story' is not one of them.This movie about a well-known contemporary love story manages to be effective and moving without being overly sentimental and cloying. Elizabeth Mitchell does a decent job in the title role. She's not a double for the real Linda, but that's OK, and she's always believable. Gary Bakewell, on the other hand, does look a lot like Paul McCartney (he played him in the excellent movie 'Backbeat') and he does a thoroughly convincing job. Most of the real-life characters portrayed here resemble their counterparts, but the thrust of the movie is on the story rather than slavishly recreating the look of any particular time period.The movie wisely concentrates on the couple's relationship and doesn't spend a lot of time trying to duplicate the music of the Beatles and Wings. Its greatest success may be its pacing, as it is able to crowd thirty years of story into a little over and hour and a half, giving attention to most of the important events in Paul and Linda's lives without making the film fell too rushed. All in all this is a good movie for fans of the McCartneys and one that more casual observers might be interested in.One other note: Allen Klein, the Beatles' ex-business manager, must still cast a mighty fearsome shadow. He's never depicted on camera in this film and is referred to as "Bruce Grossman."