Debbie Reynolds, mostly right for the part but a bit too plain (ugly)
She was mostly good and possibly no one could've done better in the role but she is a bit plain, not her fault really... just mother nature's fault. It's evolution.
I just saw the film last night on Blu-Ray with about 80 people...Reynolds looks about 4 feet tall and 4 feet wide as well...sheesh. Her legs look dumpy, and she was a teen when doing the film it appears, so there's no excuse...oh well. Things turned out well for her in the end.
shareYou two come across as a couple of hormone-driven teenagers whose idea of feminine beauty is a height of 6' and a weight of 65 lbs!!!
While I always hated Debbie's severe hairdo in this film, she did have a cute face, a good body (including her legs) and a vivacious personality.
She became a star with this film--and deservedly so!
"I just saw the film last night on Blu-Ray with about 80 people...Reynolds looks about 4 feet tall and 4 feet wide as well...sheesh. Her legs look dumpy, and she was a teen when doing the film it appears, so there's no excuse."
You two need spec - savers!
The producers had to find someone that didn't have a natural starlet look, but would still be attractive to Don and the audience. Reynolds was perfect.
Her legs look dumpy
You either A) Need glasses B) Need a new Blu-Ray player/TV C) Are trolling D) Are plain stupid.
http://i.imgur.com/dYymJIJ.jpg
https://streamable.com/xura share
The aspect ratio of your Blu-Ray player was set for wide screen, but the film is in Academy ratio (1.33:1). Stretching the picture to fit the wide format makes people appear short and plump. So, either you're joking, or you're not very bright.
shareThat's the first thing I thought when I read that...people just don't understand aspect ratios.
share