Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Movies/TV Shows with hot guys ending up with ugly girls?

245

Comments

  • #32
    MissG
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3 ✭MissG


    I completely agree with this post and have thought about this one for a long time...

    take it back even to The Simpsons- Homer is an overweight idiot going out with an intelligent gorgeous woman-now I know this is a cartoon, and not real, but that subliminal message I think has gotten in our heads at an early age.

    I'd like to think that you love someone regardless of what they look like- and I do believe that chemistry can't be explained, but to even get to talk to someone there has to be a physical attraction(certainly in the social scene in Ireland).

    I've heard of countless stories of absolutely gorgeous women being messed around by average guys-drives me mad!

    It's much rarer to see an average girl with a smoking hot guy- I used to think it was numbers-more girls than guys, so therefore they can be choosy but I'm not so sure. I think most guys aim high and girls aim lower- a confidence issue too. I think women can be their own worst enemies- there was an average looking girl in my school that went out with one of the best looking guys you've ever seen. People used to say the meanest things about her and so many girls were angry that she was with him- men would congratulate a man in the opposite situation.


  • #33
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,315 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    LZ5by5 wrote: »
    Some people claim that Maggie Gyllenhaal is unattractive
    I'd be one of those people TBH and crass and obvious as I am that film didn't quite work on that level for me because of it. Shallow? Mois? Slightly... :o

    I'm with Faith on this as an overall explanation.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #34
    Morag
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,427 ✭✭✭Morag


    It's a variation on the Madonna/whore theme.

    When she was perceived as unattractive she will not have had as much of a sexual past.
    By the her getting a make over to be come attractive the guy gets him self a bangable babe that hasn't been banged by a bunch of other dudes already. So she'll look like a whore but not have been used like one.


  • #35
    Exile 1798
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 709 ✭✭✭Exile 1798


    While it’s true that looks are very important to men, I think it's also true that most men find a greater variety of women physically attractive then most women do men.

    When looks are all that count, a guy going through his daily routine will see hundreds of women he finds extremely attractive. The girl at the café, the bird at the bus stop, the woman in the blue blouse… it's never ending

    Are women as attracted to average looking men as much as men are to average looking women? I would say not.

    It’s often said of a famous actress who's held up as being beauty personified that "she’s nothing special" or "she's nothing you couldn't see dozens of times by just walking down the street" Which is true, Aneglia Jolie not made up by a professional team and not in a fitted dress on the red carpet… her attractiveness in my eyes is equal to women I see every day. She wouldn’t even stand out from amongst all the hot women at a pub on a Saturday night.

    But how often do you see a Brad Pitt or Eric Bana at the pub? Is it ever said of them that "they’re nothing you can’t see everyday in the street"? Are they "nothing special"?

    It’s a good thing a woman's attraction can increase based on non-physical aspects of a man, otherwise we’d all be screwed.

    Based on the way some women talk, it seems like they believe that men have the same sort of lofty threshold when it comes to pure physical attraction as they do for men. It’s not the case. If you're average, you're hot. If you're just below average, we're still keen. Male attraction is very base and somewhat binary. It's not significantly effected by external forces. Men don't clamour and scream for "hot" stars the way women do. The male fantasy is for the girl next door, not the "perfect" girl who lives on another continent, in permanent sunshine, makes $20m a movie and is all powerful.

    If you're far below average that makes life difficult, but you're in a similar position as an "ugly" man without means or prospects, of which there are many.

    All IMHO, and off-course attraction is subjective.


  • #36
    parker kent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,289 ✭✭✭parker kent


    Sharrow wrote: »
    It's a variation on the Madonna/whore theme.

    When she was perceived as unattractive she will not have had as much of a sexual past.
    By the her getting a make over to be come attractive the guy gets him self a bangable babe that hasn't been banged by a bunch of other dudes already. So she'll look like a whore but not have been used like one.

    I think that is reading far, far too much into it.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    pickarooney
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 36,051 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    Pretty much anything with Kirsten Dunst should count.

    Also, you need to factor in the average good-lookingness levels over the course of a long relationship. In a lot of cases what starts out as an ugly-guy/hot-girl pairing shifts in the other direction over time.


  • #38
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Not sure about "ugly girls", there are few ugly people in the lead romantic roles in movies but personal tastes are subjective - I'm sure some film directors think they have cast a smoking hot pair but plenty are going to think the male lead is not that attractive compared with the female and, of course, visa versa...


  • #39
    Pyr0
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,967 ✭✭✭Pyr0


    Exile 1798 wrote: »
    When looks are all that count, a guy going through his daily routine will see hundreds of women he finds extremely attractive. The girl at the café, the bird at the bus stop, the woman in the blue blouse… it's never ending

    I can agree to this on a personal level, definitely. I've tried explaining this to a few female friends and they don't fully get how I can see a lot of attractive girls throughout the course of my day. They rarely ever look alike but I'd consider them the higher level of attractiveness (in my personal opinion of course).

    I wouldn't consider the media having an effect over me in how and what I perceive attractiveness to be. In saying that, I would not be able count on one hand the amount of couples I know where the male is more attractive than the female, they've either been of the same level of attractiveness or the girl has been more attractive.

    Out of all the guys I know, not one has stated they found a woman alright looking but found them more attractive because she had "X" amount of money or she had amazing job or any sort of stereotype women have been deemed look for in a man. On the other hand, the amount of girls I've come into contact with who use a car, a job, money, a musical band (purely because of the status of it, not musical talent) in raising the attractiveness of a man is shocking. Something influenced by the media? Possibly. I can't talk for every situation that could arise.


  • #40
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    Pyr0 wrote: »
    I can agree to this on a personal level, definitely. I've tried explaining this to a few female friends and they don't fully get how I can see a lot of attractive girls throughout the course of my day. They rarely ever look alike but I'd consider them the higher level of attractiveness (in my personal opinion of course).

    I wouldn't consider the media having an effect over me in how and what I perceive attractiveness to be. In saying that, I would not be able count on one hand the amount of couples I know where the male is more attractive than the female, they've either been of the same level of attractiveness or the girl has been more attractive.

    Out of all the guys I know, not one has stated they found a woman alright looking but found them more attractive because she had "X" amount of money or she had amazing job or any sort of stereotype women have been deemed look for in a man. On the other hand, the amount of girls I've come into contact with who use a car, a job, money, a musical band (purely because of the status of it, not musical talent) in raising the attractiveness of a man is shocking. Something influenced by the media? Possibly. I can't talk for every situation that could arise.

    But it still comes down to the same thing. A beautiful woman will still elevate HIS status.


  • #41
    iguana
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,917 ✭✭✭✭iguana


    The Vicar of Dibley married Dawn French to Clive Mantle;
    tumblr_ljqlslTToN1qhfzj5o1_500.jpg


    Which is one of those things that makes it obvious (and I suspect took the piss out of) what is happening in a lot of these movies and shows, like The King of Queens or According to Jim. The show itself is a vehicle for a successful comedian, like Kevin James or Jim Belushi. They come up with a dom-com idea and get on board with a network. Then they cast an extremely attractive woman as his wife because for the most part they only cast extremely attractive actors.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    iguana wrote: »
    The Vicar of Dibley married Dawn French to Clive Mantle;
    tumblr_ljqlslTToN1qhfzj5o1_500.jpg


    Which is one of those things that makes it obvious (and I suspect took the piss out of) what is happening in a lot of these movies and shows, like The King of Queens or According to Jim. The show itself is a vehicle for a successful comedian, like Kevin James or Jim Belushi. They come up with a dom-com idea and get on board with a network. Then they cast an extremely attractive woman as his wife because for the most part they only cast extremely attractive actors.


    Its also because comedy takes on a different dimension altogether. It's very hard for romantic hero types to even get cast in comedic roles because the are too handsome.

    This seemed to be true for females once upon a time, until 'Friends'. If you notice before friends, female comedians had to be somewhat goofy, like Lucy Arnez for example. Even Monroe has a goofy element.


  • #43
    Lavezzi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 79 ✭✭Lavezzi


    liah wrote: »

    This isn't to say that people should "know their limits," so to speak. I just think it's a fairly hypocritical attitude - when this scenario's put into the real world, they want to have their fantasy girl, get pissed off when she goes with someone presumably more attractive (probably calling her shallow/superficial along the way), while presumably ignoring all the 'average'-looking girls who are attracted to them because they don't match up to their standards.

    [/SIZE]

    This is definitely not applicable to any significant amount of males in the real world from my personal experience. Especially in Ireland. Since we're sharing our experiences of either gender in this regard, I will say that I have noticed a very high amount of Irish females that are average at best, looks and personality wise, deeming guys who come their way that are at least on level with them in both compartments as insufficient until they find a guy that is above average in either looks or character and then they practically throw themselves at him.

    Men are judged on their character far more and women on their physical appearance. I'ts true in both when casting actors and picking potential partners. That is why it usually turns out as the male being less physically attractive than the female in films/television. As for in the real world, female beauty is far more subjective than male beauty. In other words. Women will almost always consider the 'smoking hot guys' to be the same individuals. Whereas males will have all sorts of differing tastes to what a 'hot' female is.


  • #44
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Lavezzi wrote: »
    Women will almost always consider the 'smoking hot guys' to be the same individuals.

    That's not true at all - and while I welcome you to The Ladies Lounge, I would ask that you read the forum charter here and that from here-in you avoid making sweeping gender/national/personal/whatever assumptions and passing off personal opinion as if it were fact because it just annoys people and is commonly referred to as flaming.

    Many thanks. :cool:

    Any issues with a moderator instruction, please PM the mod in question or one of their co-mods.


  • #45
    Malari
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,150 ✭✭✭✭Malari


    Lavezzi wrote: »
    Women will almost always consider the 'smoking hot guys' to be the same individuals. Whereas males will have all sorts of differing tastes to what a 'hot' female is.

    I wouldn't agree with that at all. A scroll through the respective "objects of desire" threads in the Ladies Lounge and Gentleman's club will show most of the women to be standardised "hot" whereas the men are extremely varied and comments will often be along the lines of "I saw this guy in X show/movie and now think he's hot". It's based a lot of the time on character.

    Like Aleksander Skarsgard from True Blood. Who the hell fancied him when he was the uber-camp "orange mocha frappucino" guy from Zoolander? Now that he's a super-sexy vampire character, he's so much more attractive.


  • #46
    Handsome Bob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,905 ✭✭✭✭Handsome Bob


    Malari wrote: »
    It's based a lot of the time on character.

    In my humble, image is just as important. Would Eric be as attractive to his fanbase if he had the same lanky, dweeby physique that he had in Zoolander? I just watched Zoolander again on Sunday night, Skaarsgard is almost unrecognisable in it. :pac:


  • #47
    Malari
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,150 ✭✭✭✭Malari


    LZ5by5 wrote: »
    In my humble, image is just as important. Would Eric be as attractive to his fanbase if he had the same lanky, dweeby physique that he had in Zoolander? I just watched Zoolander again on Sunday night, Skaarsgard is almost unrecognisable in it. :pac:

    Oh yeah, I meant that. I mean, his face doesn't change that much. He's still an attractive guy back in the Zoolander days. But it's looks plus character. In fact I think it's Looks + 2 x (Character) :pac:

    I do think that even if he was still lanky, that if his character made up for it then he'd still be considered attractive.


  • #48
    Dimitri
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 641 ✭✭✭Dimitri


    With regards to the op's point Sex and the city jumps to mind fairly fast, I can honestly say I find none of them in any way attractive at all and couple with the fact the seem to be awful people yet only one of them ended up with a fat bald guy who also happened to be the only character in the show that I thought had any redeeming characteristics. But as always taste is subjective!


  • #49
    Malari
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,150 ✭✭✭✭Malari


    Dimitri wrote: »
    With regards to the op's point Sex and the city jumps to mind fairly fast, I can honestly say I find none of them in any way attractive at all and couple with the fact the seem to be awful people yet only one of them ended up with a fat bald guy who also happened to be the only character in the show that I thought had any redeeming characteristics. But as always taste is subjective!

    It's not the first time I've heard this, and it often takes over from a show if the woman isn't good-looking enough. There's an expectation; good-looking woman, and man with enough personality to make him attractive. I've heard it in my own house! My boyfriend won't make any specific comment if the woman is good-looking in a show, but if she dips below the standard then it's all "she has a huge arse, her face is kind of weird, I don't like her hair"

    The guy is usually never commented upon. I honestly don't blame movie and tv show producers picking good-looking women. There are probably hundreds of articles written about whether Sarah Jessica Parker is good-looking or not. Or good-looking enough.


  • #50
    iguana
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,917 ✭✭✭✭iguana


    Malari wrote: »
    It's not the first time I've heard this, and it often takes over from a show if the woman isn't good-looking enough. There's an expectation; good-looking woman, and man with enough personality to make him attractive. I've heard it in my own house! My boyfriend won't make any specific comment if the woman is good-looking in a show, but if she dips below the standard then it's all "she has a huge arse, her face is kind of weird, I don't like her hair"

    The guy is usually never commented upon. I honestly don't blame movie and tv show producers picking good-looking women. There are probably hundreds of articles written about whether Sarah Jessica Parker is good-looking or not. Or good-looking enough.

    For the purpose of this thread Chris Noth is better looking than Sarah Jessica Parker. But Kirstin Davies is more attractive than the man her character married and the other two ended up with partners of roughly equal attractiveness, albeit Cattrall at 15 years older was past her prime, while Lewis was still in his.


  • #51
    Malari
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,150 ✭✭✭✭Malari


    iguana wrote: »
    For the purpose of this thread Chris Noth is better looking than Sarah Jessica Parker.

    Do you think so? Is that a commonly held belief? I would have thought they were both about the same lookswise! They are both reasonably good-looking people, with maybe oversized noses...


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Dimitri
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 641 ✭✭✭Dimitri


    Malari wrote: »
    It's not the first time I've heard this, and it often takes over from a show if the woman isn't good-looking enough. There's an expectation; good-looking woman, and man with enough personality to make him attractive. I've heard it in my own house! My boyfriend won't make any specific comment if the woman is good-looking in a show, but if she dips below the standard then it's all "she has a huge arse, her face is kind of weird, I don't like her hair"

    The guy is usually never commented upon. I honestly don't blame movie and tv show producers picking good-looking women. There are probably hundreds of articles written about whether Sarah Jessica Parker is good-looking or not. Or good-looking enough.

    I may get slated for this but in widely rash generalities I would say that your boyfriends comment is fairly typical of people with regards to female characters as opposed to just men judging female characters. Also in the case of SATC perhaps part of its success was finding actors who could best portray the characters as opposed adhering to the mould. While I cant stand the show one bit and find the main characters to be simply 4 most annoying characters ever drummed up, I dont think they would have been as convincing had they been played by "conventionally good looking" actors even if they were as talented or better then those picked.


  • #53
    iguana
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,917 ✭✭✭✭iguana


    Malari wrote: »
    Do you think so? Is that a commonly held belief? I would have thought they were both about the same lookswise! They are both reasonably good-looking people, with maybe oversized noses...

    I think SJP is horrible looking and that's a pretty common opinion. When she was younger she had a sort of quirky but cute look, but she's very unattractive now. Her features are all very sharp and her face is utterly emaciated which emphasises it's length. And she looks sooooo much worse in real life.

    Perhaps if she put some weight back on she'd look better, imo the series of SatC in which she did look fairly attractive was the series in which she is pregnant as her face looked properly fleshed out. In that series she's probably close to equal with Noth but the rest of the time she's no where near him.


  • #54
    gargleblaster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,425 ✭✭✭gargleblaster


    Malari wrote: »
    I wouldn't agree with that at all. A scroll through the respective "objects of desire" threads in the Ladies Lounge and Gentleman's club will show most of the women to be standardised "hot" whereas the men are extremely varied and comments will often be along the lines of "I saw this guy in X show/movie and now think he's hot". It's based a lot of the time on character.

    Exactly this. I'm shocked it was even argued otherwise, isn't this intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer?

    As for SATC - consider the audience they were writing (and casting) for. Perhaps that might have something to do with the fact that they didn't cast people like Eva Longoria or Alison Brie?


  • #55
    Malari
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,150 ✭✭✭✭Malari


    iguana wrote: »
    I think SJP is horrible looking and that's a pretty common opinion. When she was younger she had a sort of quirky but cute look, but she's very unattractive now. Her features are all very sharp and her face is utterly emaciated which emphasises it's length. And she looks sooooo much worse in real life.

    Perhaps if she put some weight back on she'd look better, imo the series of SatC in which she did look fairly attractive was the series in which she is pregnant as her face looked properly fleshed out. In that series she's probably close to equal with Noth but the rest of the time she's no where near him.

    OK, fair enough. I don't think she's that bad (just googled some images of her from this year's Oscars). I don't consider Chris Noth that good looking (trained caterpillars or eyebrows? You decide!). Maybe I'm falling for the character thing with her - I actually really liked the witticisms and quirky appeal of Carrie in SATC so maybe it makes her more attractive.

    I am aware that she is generally considered ugly. But I thought it was...y'know Hollywood ugly! Same as an earlier comment from another poster about Kirsten Dunst. Is she that bad? I mean straight teeth does NOT a beautiful woman make.


  • #56
    seenitall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭seenitall


    I agree that Chris Noth is above sjp in looks dept. (as is John Corbett, as is Ron Livingston - "Aidan" and "Berger" respectively), so it may be that that character was supposed to be played by a more beautiful actress... but I think that sjp really made the role her own, I really liked her in it.

    Kristin Davis is a stunner in my book, so to call her unattractive... I find it weird tbh.

    Kirsten Dunst - I get that; she's very cute but not Hollywood beautiful so of course she's going to be the dork in the run-of-the-mill rom-com.

    Maggie G. - same thing, although obviously with a bit of connection in the right places and/or a good agent people like her can really achieve a cachet for going for edgier roles, so all is not doom and gloom. I'm sure she's not too unhappy with her Oscar nomination the other year. (Plus she's got a yummy hubby!)

    I do think Hollywood is generally going in the right direction regarding female roles; there is more variety these days.

    I remember the first time I was surprised by Hollywood was back in 1996 when they cast Claire Danes opposite Di Caprio in "Romeo + Juliet". Claire Danes! If there is one role that is meant to be played by a seriously flawless and at the same time almost child-like beauty, it has to be Juliet (as demonstrated by Zefirelli's casting of Olivia Hussey in the 60's).


  • #57
    LegacyUser
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 166,012 ✭✭✭✭LegacyUser


    seenitall wrote: »
    I agree that Chris Noth is above sjp in looks dept. (as is John Corbett, as is Ron Livingston - "Aidan" and "Berger" respectively), so it may be that that character was supposed to be played by a more beautiful actress... but I think that sjp really made the role her own, I really liked her in it.

    No, I reckon not, I think the whole point of Carrie was that she was supposed to be a charismatic character with a cute vibe going on. I think we can all agree you don't have to be a looker to have those magnetic traits. :) IMO, Ron Livingston was her best-looking boyfriend but I thought the character were well matched intellectually so I never thought them an odd couple. SJP and Ron Livingston had great on-screen chemistry.

    I think the SATC casting was spot-on. The main target audience of this show was female not male, so it wasn't necessary to cast all beauties. I found the cast more ordinary looks refreshing.

    Though seriously, is anyone suggesting that Kristin Davis isn't a beauty?


  • #58
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    seenitall wrote: »
    I agree that Chris Noth is above sjp in looks dept. (as is John Corbett, as is Ron Livingston - "Aidan" and "Berger" respectively), so it may be that that character was supposed to be played by a more beautiful actress... but I think that sjp really made the role her own, I really liked her in it.

    Kristin Davis is a stunner in my book, so to call her unattractive... I find it weird tbh.

    Kirsten Dunst - I get that; she's very cute but not Hollywood beautiful so of course she's going to be the dork in the run-of-the-mill rom-com.

    Maggie G. - same thing, although obviously with a bit of connection in the right places and/or a good agent people like her can really achieve a cachet for going for edgier roles, so all is not doom and gloom. I'm sure she's not too unhappy with her Oscar nomination the other year. (Plus she's got a yummy hubby!)

    I do think Hollywood is generally going in the right direction regarding female roles; there is more variety these days.

    I remember the first time I was surprised by Hollywood was back in 1996 when they cast Claire Danes opposite Di Caprio in "Romeo + Juliet". Claire Danes! If there is one role that is meant to be played by a seriously flawless and at the same time almost child-like beauty, it has to be Juliet (as demonstrated by Zefirelli's casting of Olivia Hussey in the 60's).

    I totally agree with you about Claire Danes vs Olivia Hussey, but Luhrmen is very pop whereas Zefferili is all about artistry and has a totally different aesthetic. Then there would be the limited availablity of American actresses who are both box office and can pull of Shakespeare, and Lurhmen wants box office. US training is far more method, whereas the Brits are more trained in costume and imitative drama. So what was he gonna do?

    SJP was the producer of SATC and coupled herself up with Noth and Barishnakov, who imo is way out of her league, former husband of the lovely Jessica Lange. But for the devoted female audience the lead actress could hardly have ugly boyfriends.


  • #59
    parker kent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,289 ✭✭✭parker kent


    Girl type person wrote: »
    Though seriously, is anyone suggesting that Kristin Davis isn't a beauty?

    No I don't think anybody could say that. I suggested SATC early in this thread, but with the proviso that Kristin Davis was genuinely beautiful.
    seenitall wrote: »
    If there is one role that is meant to be played by a seriously flawless and at the same time almost child-like beauty, it has to be Juliet (as demonstrated by Zefirelli's casting of Olivia Hussey in the 60's).

    Juliet is supposed to be 14. Hailee Steinfeld cast in the upcoming version by Carlo Carlei is more accurate than Claire Danes (although I can see it causing controversy).


  • #60
    iguana
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,917 ✭✭✭✭iguana


    parker kent wrote: »
    No I don't think anybody could say that. I suggested SATC early in this thread, but with the proviso that Kristin Davis was genuinely beautiful.

    Davies was definitely the best looking of the four, though Cattrall was also very attractive in the 80s.
    parker kent wrote: »
    Juliet is supposed to be 14. Hailee Steinfeld cast in the upcoming version by Carlo Carlei is more accurate than Claire Danes (although I can see it causing controversy).

    Wasn't Danes only about 16 when R+J was filmed. She was 15 when she filmed My So Called Life, left that series after 1 year to pursue film work and was cast as Juliet straight after.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    parker kent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,289 ✭✭✭parker kent


    iguana wrote: »
    Wasn't Danes only about 16 when R+J was filmed. She was 15 when she filmed My So Called Life, left that series after 1 year to pursue film work and was cast as Juliet straight after.

    You're actually right. I guess me being 10 at the time gave me a false impression of her age in the movie (16 year olds seem like proper grown ups :P)

    She was born in 1979 and it came out in 1996.


Advertisement