Amanda Seyfried

[Alvedansen]

On set of the new biopic "LoveLace" in Los Angeles - 25 January 2012

tlfan

 

[Prairie]

It could sound strange but there's something totally wrong about that ^ movie.

 

[tarsha]

W Korea February 2012, bigger cover



facebook/w korea

 

[Alvedansen]

2012-01-26 - On the set of "LoveLace" in Los Angeles

tlfan

 

[Alvedansen]

tlfan

 

[Alvedansen]

2012-01-28 - Out in Los Angeles

tlfan

 

[ksva7]

Glamour March 2012

ebay via Vanessa12

 

[visualoptimism]

Glamour March US 2012
Star: Amanda Seyfried
Photographer: Ellen von Unwerth
Stylist: Anne Christensen
Hair: Kevin Ryan
Make-Up: Monika Blunder





kroqjock @ celebutopia

 

[Prairie]

^ "snagging the best roles in Hollywood"
Are they serious?

 

[Melly5525]

Loving the Glamour cover and spread, totally captures her ultra girly bubbly personality, love the Balmain top on the cover, and she looks hot in that green Versace dress

 

[visualoptimism]

^ yes i know what you mean! i like amanda but she hasn't been in that many great films. she snagged a role in the upcoming les misérables, so we'll see what happens in that one.

in regards to the glamour spread, i don't hate it! i like ellen von unwerth and the bright colours are really nice. i think my favourite is the one with her on the diving board wearing prada, she looks really pretty, especially her eyes.

 

[Prairie]

I guess I'd like this editorial much more if it didn't remind me of Rachel McAdams' from the previous issue.

 

[Alvedansen]

i only like the ones of her on the counter and on the spring board

 

[pixiedust1603]

She's gorgeous but the whole concept is just lazy. The cover is just so bad.

 

[Alvedansen]

2012-02-01 - On the set of "Lovelace"

tlfan

 

[Alvedansen]

Amanda Seyfried and Peter Sarsgaard attend the official wrap party for their film Lovelace, presented by DeLeon Tequila, at The Writer’s Room on Friday (February 3) in Los Angeles.
The 26-year-old actress and the 40-year-old actor were joined by their co-star Juno Temple, 22, at the party.

justjared

 

[loladonna]

Her Glamour interview gives perfect illustration of why Amanda may never reach that next level in terms of her acting. She says she would never do full frontal, yet she takes a role as a p*rn star. This pretty much guarantees Lovelace movie will be a tame compromise. I can't imagine someone like Fassbender or Carey Mulligan taking on a role of a p*rn star whilst declaring they would never do full frontal. I don't get why actors get cast for parts that they aren't willing to go full out (literally) for.

Other than that, she manages to be very candid and unfiltered in her interviews without coming across poorly like Rooney Mara. There is something endearing about her honesty.

 

[pavonine]

^Then again, isn't most of the nudity one gets to see in Hollywood gratuitous?

Besides, you really don't need to get your kit off to prove you can act. The reason her career hasn't taken off like Emma Stone's is primarily because of poor script selection. She just appears to sign everything that's offered to her and doesn't appear to be selective at all. Films like Red Riding Hood, In Time et al did zilch for her career.

 

[LolaSvelt]

Well even she has actually done nudity before (in Chloe) but not frontal. I feel like if you really are passionate about acting, you should be willing to do things that you don't want to do including nudity. That's what makes acting so challenging!

However, Cate Blanchett has managed to have a successful career without doing nudity (that I know of). I don't know what her stance is on nudity, but she did have a body double for Elizabeth: The Golden Age because she didn't agree with the director's decision to put it in the film.

But other than Blanchett, it's no real coincidence that the actresses who refuse to do it don't get very far in their respective careers. Perhaps these actresses have turned down roles that could've done something for their careers?

 

[loladonna]

^Then again, isn't most of the nudity one gets to see in Hollywood gratuitous?

Besides, you really don't need to get your kit off to prove you can act. The reason her career hasn't taken off like Emma Stone's is primarily because of poor script selection. She just appears to sign everything that's offered to her and doesn't appear to be selective at all. Films like Red Riding Hood, In Time et al did zilch for her career.

Yes, but she's playing a p*rn star in Lovelace--nudity would be almost a necessity in such a role, no?

But other than Blanchett, it's no real coincidence that the actresses who refuse to do it don't get very far in their respective careers. Perhaps these actresses have turned down roles that could've done something for their careers?

Cate Blanchett is definitely a rarity among the more esteemed actresses. The "America's Sweetheart" variety of actresses (Reese, Julia Roberts, Sandra Bullock, Jennifer Aniston..etc) get away with the no nudity because of their perceived box office power and their movie choices are safe. Actors in the higher quality artistic films that get nominated for awards tend to be more fearless and less prudish-- Julianne Moore comes to mind.

Amanda's film choices are so all over the place it's hard to say where she's aiming. Maybe she's modeling herself after Angelina? I think Emma Stone is headed towards "Sweetheart" territory-- I'd be surprised if her clothes ever came off.