![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
May. 27th, 2009 01:17 pmSo, flicking through the channels at lunch, I settled on "Lucky 13", this romantic comedy with Lauren Graham. Its awful! But I was totally baffled, because imdb says it was made in 2005. And I was thinking, Gilmore Girls was in full swing at that point, and she had already starred in bigger movies (well, Bad Santa and the Pacifier weren't great, but they were still well advertised mainstream movies), so what was she doing in this stinker?
But it also had Kaley Cuoco in it, but she looks three or four years younger than she did on "8 Simple Rules", even though the show started in 2005 also. I mean, in this she actually looks like a teenager, rather than a young actress playing a teenager. Plus she would've been 20 in 2005, and no way does she look 20 in this movie. She doesn't even look 15 in this movie. And Lauren Graham did look younger as well. As did Jenna Fischer, who was playing a sorority girl (with a bad perm!). The Office just started that year, but it also had Sasha Alexander, and this was right when NCIS was going on and Kitty from That 70s Show. But also, Taryn Manning and Amanda Demeter, who would have had a bunch of movie credits under the belt at this point. I wouldn't call any of those actresses real famous, but they would be at least Geebs famous, and that's a lot of Geebs famous chyx for such a crappy movie.
Though looking at the boards, I guess it was actually filmed in 1999 and it took them several years to actually get someone to release it. But that makes sense. I mean, Lauren Graham, Jenna Fischer and some of the other chyx, you can't really tell the difference in age. But with Kaley Cuoco, it was ridiculously obvious. Weird, so imdb's date for movies is actually the release date rather than when the film was made? That's kinda confusing.
But it also had Kaley Cuoco in it, but she looks three or four years younger than she did on "8 Simple Rules", even though the show started in 2005 also. I mean, in this she actually looks like a teenager, rather than a young actress playing a teenager. Plus she would've been 20 in 2005, and no way does she look 20 in this movie. She doesn't even look 15 in this movie. And Lauren Graham did look younger as well. As did Jenna Fischer, who was playing a sorority girl (with a bad perm!). The Office just started that year, but it also had Sasha Alexander, and this was right when NCIS was going on and Kitty from That 70s Show. But also, Taryn Manning and Amanda Demeter, who would have had a bunch of movie credits under the belt at this point. I wouldn't call any of those actresses real famous, but they would be at least Geebs famous, and that's a lot of Geebs famous chyx for such a crappy movie.
Though looking at the boards, I guess it was actually filmed in 1999 and it took them several years to actually get someone to release it. But that makes sense. I mean, Lauren Graham, Jenna Fischer and some of the other chyx, you can't really tell the difference in age. But with Kaley Cuoco, it was ridiculously obvious. Weird, so imdb's date for movies is actually the release date rather than when the film was made? That's kinda confusing.
