don't even understand why he had the hots for her anyway. and ALL of the main characters look too old to be in freaking high school!
shareLea Thompson is NOT attractiveOnly a man that has suffered blunt force head trauma at some point in his life would say such a thing.
she was very attractive in this movie!When there's no more room in hell, The dead will walk the earth...
And she has legs to die for.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
She has a tough-looking, hard-bitten little mouth and a stocky shape--fine for some roles, maybe even for this one--but beautiful, no. In contrast, Keith is handsome, almost an Adonis--hard to believe he wasn't popular. I think both were miscast from a physical standpoint in their roles, even though their acting was very enjoyable.
shareAdonis? I don't think so.Even though Eic Stoltz is attractive in this movie,he has some very feminine like features and his voice and red hair didn't help.
So, I can definitely see him being the quiet, sensitive, arty type in high school. He was perfectly casted.
[deleted]
"She has a tough-looking, hard-bitten little mouth and a stocky shape--fine for some roles, maybe even for this one--but beautiful, no."
Did you just call Lea Thompson "stocky?" If you did, then one can only assume that you don't know what "stocky" means.
No I agree. Eric Stolz was beautiful and its hard to believe he wouldn't have been popular. He was better looking than all the other guys in the movie.
share[deleted]
It's pretty shocking the number of people that apparently feel Thompson is downright unattractive. Are you people blind? I could understand if people said, "Yeah, Lea's okay, but I think Masterson is prettier." But some of you guys are taking it a step further.
Funniest (or most perplexing) are people excusing the casting of Lea by saying stuff like, "Now remember, this is the 80's we're talking about," as if Lea is somehow so ugly, but we can excuse it now in hindsight because we all know people in the 80's were insane, or that everyone in the 80's was ugly, so Lea by comparison looked better than most. Crap, I don't even know what to make of a comment like that.
So do we all agree that all previous generations were off their rocker in the women they found attractive and that the popular females of today represent the "real" version of attractiveness? You know, Lindsay Lohan, Olsen Twins type of look--the kind of look where it seems like they've had tons of plastic surgeries even if they haven't; where it looks like they have so much toner, bronzer and spackle on that it would make Tammy Faye envious; almost an alien face that looks slightly melted. Tattoos and meth addictions a plus.
Lea was very beautiful in this movie. Her body in the locker room scene is fantastic. Lean and athletic from years of ballet training. Especially her legs. She also has an amazing smile with killer dimples.
I can totaly see why she was cast in the part. Her look was very fresh faced, healthy, All-American girl and that was a hugely popular look in the 80's when casting a female lead. Where as these days the 'hot girl' is usually played by someone who looks like a porn star (Megan Fox etc).
I love this movie lea was very pretty too .
shareI agree with you that Lea is attractive and I also don't know what people mean with the 80's comments, but you're off base about Lindsay Lohan and the Olsen twins. I don't think many people consider them to be beautiful (Lindsay used to be back in her 'Mean Girls' days). And that overly plastic look is not a fan favorite - that's why many people don't find Megan Fox attractive anymore.
"I don't want to make money. I just want to be wonderful."
While I thought Lea Thompson was cute, she had ZERO body. No boobs, no butt, no legs. I guess some guys are into that.
She was all hair!
I agree. She was not hot at all. Poor casting choice for a girl who is suppose to be hot.
shareMary Stuart Masterson was hotter.
shareKeith's mother was the hottest.
Then Lea Thompson.
Then the tomboy.