15 years old?? Yeah, right

Well, I have to respectfully disagree with you on a few things. First, Connie at times does look older than 15 in this movie-which is a little strange for the times it takes place in. But I have seen a heck of a lot of girls these days who are in middle school who look like they can pass for high schoolers. I thought she was actually believable as a girl who was supposed to be 15 but could pass for 18. After all, she was hanging out a place where everyone was older. If she looked like a 15 year old, viewers would complain that the guys at the hamburger stand were acting like pedophiles. Second, there was 80's cheese, because that is how girls acted in the mall when they were alone without their parents in the 80's. It made me laugh actually, because I was 15 in 1985 and I remember boy watching in the mall. Although I never actually stuck my face in anyone's rear end on an escalator, LOL. Third, I thought the girl who played June did fine-she was supposed to be understated and spinsterish. The weak link in the movie was Jill. But then again, I did read from some comments on the board that this character was added for the movie and not in the short story. I haven't read the story, but after seeing this movie 25 years after I originally saw it, I will be reading it soon. I still give this film 8 out of 10 stars.

*** CONTAINS SPOILERS***

I agree with you; being a huge fan of the short story the film is based on, I had imagined a kind of Lolita-style character for Connie, when I was reading the story. And, it goes without saying, she should be a girl that looks very young (15-16 years old), maybe a bit more like Connie's best friend in the movie.
I also totally agree with the older sister looking younger. I knew she was older only because I had read the short story; there's no way someone can think Laura Dern's Connie is younger.
So, all in all, despite Dern's acting, which was really good, she didn't convince me as a 15-year-old. Her physique doesn't help at all; she has a cute, youngish face in the movie, but she's tall and fully-formed as an adult woman. This failure of the movie to create the illusion of the main character being a teenager, was a big disappointment.
As for audiences complaining for pedophilia, if a younger-looking actress had been used (it is suggested by one commenter on this board), this might be plausible as one of the reasons behind the choice of Dern. But then again, the irony! The film itself (and the story it's based on, more intensely) revolves around the theme of pedophilia(among other issues). It is not clearly stated in the movie, but one can easily guess that Arnold Friend is a much older man, maybe in his thirties. So, call it pedophilia or not, the film IS about a 30ish guy luring teenage girls, and Connie's character should be more convincing in appearance in order to suggest this. :)

She clearly looked 18 going on 19.

Checked her BIO right here on IMDb.. oh, wait.. you could have done just the same.. LOL

@gtrz: Part of watching a movie is the ability to suspend disbelief. Laura Dern was eighteen when she made this movie. Only three years older than fifteen; to someone even only in their late twenties, children. Since you were never a 15-year-old girl, let me assure you, we acted like that and the unlucky ones found themselves in situations much the same as Connie's. Lastly, fyi: the movie was made in 1986. Funny how that would come across in the production of a movie not categorized as a period piece. Go figure.

@ovaltine12: I was fifteen in the ninth grade; nevertheless, I agree with you.

I also agree with @felicity_gr about Hollywood movie makers and the issues they have to consider when casting for movies, particularly in 1986 when this was made.

I just watched this movie, and I agree. Laura Dern looked too old for this character. I found it hard to believe her romping and giggling in the mall with those little girls. When Treat Williams came to her house, I could envision them as just a couple, not as a little girl being preyed upon by a pedophile. Perhaps I will check out the short story.

If you can't handle movies just because they were made in a certain decade you perceive as automatically "cheesy", why continue to watch them? When someone says he didn't even know Levon Helm had acted in movies, after two of his most prominent roles, his opinions lose validity.
Laura Dern's character is referred in some of these comments as not looking like a "typical 15-year-old" and she is said to not be a typical 18-year-old. A character in a movie does not always have to be an example of a typical anything. It doesn't take a suspension of disbelief to know there are awkward, lanky girls and to feel the suspense of the scene. If you watch a movie like your time is too valuable for you to care in the first place, or in a group as if it is your position to shoot holes in it, you're not going to feel anything for it anyway. Movies don't always have to be believable anyway. Just knowing certain situations like this occur is enough to help you believe something is possible (in this fictional story, by the way.)

Laura Dern said she was 17 when she made this film, so not too far off. To those who are saying she's too tall/adult looking to believe she is 15, well that by definition is the curse of the girls who develop early! Everyone treats them like they're older because they look older! Their emotional development still has a long way to go.