What?
That actress is Brianda Agramonte, she was specifically chosen because she has a hot body, so that line is not only irrelevant, it's totally inaccurate.
Great movie otherwise.
http://TheMovieGoer.com
The film is a deadpan comedy taking the Michael out of period movies that would frequently be tacky enough to use the old 'snuff' film plot. Part of the joke is that so-called young teens would frequently be played by actors old enough to nearly be entitled to receive their pensions.
Early in the movie, look at the wrong type of tire-iron the 'hero' takes from the car to use as a potential weapon. A joke worthy of the Naked Gun films. Likewise notice the magazine the 'hero' reads when he returns home from the 'farm'.
Did you not notice that none of the story makes any sense at all? What possible motivation did our 'hero' have for joining with the 'toughs'? This is a sarcastic reference to how these old films needed an 'innocent' as the central 'heroic' focus of their crime drama, no matter how stupid this is conceptually. Of course, the original movies worked to give the 'hero' some excuse for his choices whereas this film is careful to give the 'hero' none at all as part of the joke.
Yeah that bugged me too... she hardly looked like some young nubile nymph, she looked well into her 20s. Mind you I was totally distracted by her funbags so maybe I'm wrong 😛
--------------------
Duty Now For The Future
You are all way too literal.
It was an old guy saying that the woman was very, very young. That's all.
He wasn't thinking "she looks 15, but this isn't Connecticut, were she could dive at 15, but we are in Texas, and the driving age here is 16 so "she's not even old enough to drive."
Some times you just have to agree to enjoy the movie, instead of trying to be the smartest guy in the room by finding fault with everything.
Exactly. The guy wasn't talking about the actress that plays the girl. He was talking about the type of girl that was supposed to be. Too young and too vulnerable.