I suppose we haven’t really been paying enough (or any) attention lately to Amanda Seyfried, because she’s feeling the need to show off a bit in her new interview with W Magazine, claiming that she just loves sex scenes and especially loved kissing Megan Fox in Jennifer’s Body because it was “sexy”. Girl, stop trying to make yourself happen. You ain’t happening.
“[Megan Fox and I] kissed really well together. We have similar kissing styles. If I watch the scene, it’s actually really sexy. We got it done for the masses, and, sadly, the masses didn’t show up.”
“I love acting like I’m in love! Sex scenes are great. A lot of my co-stars have been sexy guys my age who are really respectful and cool. So, why not? I’m not going to pretend it’s not fun.”
Here’s the thing: I generally never minded Amanda Seyfried. She’s certainly not an amazing actress, but she’s not a bad one and is relatively unoffensive. However, this whole thing just reads like she’s intentionally aiming for being salacious and ends up coming off as… desperate. To seem edgy, to seem “cool”, SOMETHING. And it just isn’t working.
Who knows – maybe she does genuinely enjoy sex scenes? Sure, why not. But bringing that up in a magazine just makes you seem… I dunno, contrived. Like you’re trying too hard to show off how down-to-earth and relatable you are. ‘Cos come on, ladies – who wouldn’t have fun when you get to kiss hot guys all day?!?!?! Am I right?!?!?!
Amanda Seyfried dated Dominic Cooper for ages before they finally broke up, and Justin Long was with Drew Barrymore, which was really weird. Neither of those relationships were all that exciting, but somehow they’ve managed to outdo themselves by getting together. That’s right: Justin and Amanda are apparently seeing one another and things are starting to heat up. Yippee?
“Justin is super private about his relationships, [so] I’m not positive how they exactly met, but they’ve known each other for awhile, when they were seeing other people,” a source tells Us. “They recently started hanging out more, going on date-like activities. They’re both busy … but they’re seeing where it goes.”
Adds another source, the new couple have a “similar sense of humor.”
Though the pair has remained low-key about their relationship, an eyewitness at a July 30 event for the Lovelace premiere tells Us that they were “inseparable.”
“Justin came alone and stayed close to Amanda all night,” the source says. “They weren’t making out or anything like that, but they were just inseparable during the event. He hung out when she talked with others.”
Well, that’s… nice? No, who am I kidding – it’s boring as shit. I can’t think of a relationship I care about less, to be honest. What do you guys think – is romance brewing?
I can’t think of any movie I’d rather watch less than Lovelace, but star Amanda Seyfried seems to think it’s going to be revolutionary and people are going to care enough about it that it could possibly ruin her career since she gets naked on screen.
“This is the riskiest thing that’s happening in Hollywood right now,” she told The Sunday Times Mag.
Amanda, who was a little less bare in Abba musical Mamma Mia! was concerned what the amount of flesh she flashed could do for her reputation as an actress.
“The first thing you think about is that it could ruin my career,” she added.
“It’s funny, because I felt liberated when I was doing it. I’m sure people that are very protective of me wouldn’t feel very comfortable with that,” she continued. “But it’s like, what’s the big deal.”
I guess this is what she’s worried about:
Not that they’re at all comparable as actresses (Seyfried is mediocre at best, and that’s being generous), but has she never heard of Kate Winslet? She gets her boobs out in like, every single film and is still rather widely regarded as a total queen and the Meryl Streep of her generation. No one cares, girl. This will just be another film in your list of credits that makes people cringe but they ultimately probably won’t remember much about.
Amanda Seyfried took her Lovelace role personally, I suppose, because she’s in the August issue of Elle talking about how her vagina needs to spark for her to be in a relationship, which always happens right away. Basically, she won’t grow to love you if she doesn’t immediately. Lots of people will take issue with that but I actually kind of agree with that. I’m a “know right away” person myself and I never grow to like anyone if I don’t in the beginning – that goes for friends, as well. Still, I do think that the person you’re with becomes more attractive the more you get to know them, but that goes along with a spark being there to begin with. But anyway, this is about Amanda. Let’s let her (and her vagina) shine:
On the need for physical attraction in a relationship: “Everybody I’ve dated I’ve been sexually attracted to immediately. Sparks don’t grow—your vagina doesn’t become more inclined to wanting someone just because you’re around them.”
Well, fair enough. She also pictures some guy not in the industry who she’s known since she was 16 as the father of her children all the time, apparently, but for now it’s “just a fantasy”. Huh, what’s that all about? Who knows!
The whole Lovelace movie weirds me out, not because it’s about a porn star (bow-chicka-bow-wow), but because it stars Amanda Seyfried, who I wouldn’t believe as a porn star even if she accidentally released a “sex tape” with James Deen. It’s just… no. Terrible, terrible casting. I’d even believe Lohan over her.
Alas, this has been made and it’s as good as done and dusted since it’s hitting US theatres (on limited release, of course) next month. In case you’re actually interested in the plot of this garbage, it’s about Lovelace finding success in porn as she filmed Deep Throat in 1972. James Franco is in the movie as Hugh Hefner (HAHAHA!!!), Peter Skarsgaard plays Lovelace’s abusive husband Chuck Traynor and of course, a porn biopic wouldn’t be complete without Chloe Sevigny.
What do you think? Will you be watching this, or giving it a miss?
Alright, awesome news, people: there’s a Hillary Clinton biopic in the works. Rodham will follow Hils from 1974, back when she was a lawyer in Washington. Sweet, right? Well, a great woman needs a great actress to play her, and a few have been shortlisted for the part. Hint: all of them are pretty terrible.
Rodham – about the younger years of the former First Lady and senator – is due out some time around the 2016 presidential election, in which Clinton might be a canditate. It will focus on 1974, when she was a Washington lawyer.
Among those in the running to play the 26-year-old Clinton are Amanda Seyfried, who starred in Les Misérables, Zero Dark Thirty‘s Jessica Chastain, Reese Witherspoon, and Scarlett Johansson, most recently seen playing Janet Leigh in Hitchcock.
Rodham director James Ponstoldt said: “They’re all wonderful actresses. We’re very fortunate that a lot of really great actors are interested in playing these roles. We’re in an enviable position.”
“Regardless of people’s political affiliation or how they feel about Hillary Clinton, you don’t find people who question the quality of her intelligence or her drive. I want a wonderful actress who could embody that.”
Oh, man. Please keep searching, Ponstoldt. I don’t particularly mind any of these actresses on their own, but as Hillary Clinton? Nah. What do you think?