Was it me? or Donna was not that pretty..

I thought she was hot and I am a guy.

Slobberknocker!

I'd say she was kinda cute, but not beautiful. But isn't that far more realistic? Hollywood usually makes the love interest downright beautiful, which seems rather false.

If anything, the film embellished the relationship between Donna and Ritchie. I don't think they were as serious as portrayed. One aspect that was accurate was that Donna's father was racist toward Ritchie. I saw a VH1 special a few years ago, and the real Donna stated that her father did not let her attend the party Ritchie's family had before he went on the tour during which he was killed. She said it was a long time before she forgave her father for denying her the chance to say goodbye.

"she wasn't even crying . . . ."

When Donna Ludwig was interviewed on TV, the interviewer asked her how she had reacted when she heard the news that Ritchie was killed in the plane wreck.

She said that she acted pretty much as she was portrayed in the movie. She hinted that she just went kind of numb and couldn't really respond to what was going on.

Donna was average looking in the movie. But lets not forget that it was set in the 1950's, and girls back then probably weren't even allowed to wear makeup to school. Plus Donna was probably only 16 back then which means she was practically still a child. If this movie was set in today's date, Donna would have had more makeup and a different hair style hence making her more attractive. In my opinion Donna was plain, but not unattractive. Have any of you seen what Nicole Kidman looked like at 16? She definately wasn't the beauty she is today.

I'm a guy and I'm the same age as the actress that played Donna. I think she was cast perfectly for this. She has a girl-next-door beauty, that caught many young boys' eyes. Had you casted a super-hottie, that would have totally distracted from the movie - the movie wasn't exlusively about their relationship. The movie was a snapshot of the last two years of Ritchie's life.

Ritchie, as portrayed in the film at least, was a sensitive, mature-beyond-his-years young man. Had his older brother had a real looker, it would have made sense, since he was the wild, free-wheeling brother, and hotties always go for the bad boys, right?

This is a fantastic film all the way around, including the casting, imo.

Who are you to tell me I can't think someone is gorgeous? Some people can find someone ugly while others can find them to be very attractive, it's all opinion.

I thought the actress was attractive. She didn't have to be a knockout since the character was about 16 or 17 years old in the film.

Regarding the claim that the real Ritchie was butt ugly, or as most often heard these days, fugly: In some photos I've seen of him he did look rather homely, but in others he looked halfway decent. More than likely would not have been classified as a teen idol had he lived longer.