MovieChat Forums > The Best of Times (1986) Discussion > Watching this movie again...

Watching this movie again...

posted 9 years ago by terp34
3 replies | jump to latest

It seems like these guys are way, way older than they should be. If they were 16-18 years old when the 1972 game took place and the rematch is 13 years later, then they would have been between 29 and 31. But don't most of them appear to be in their mid 30s at best (Jack and Reno) while some seem to be in their 50s? lol. Obviously it's a movie, but they casting director should've been a little more picky. It felt like the rematch was for a game 23 years ago, not 13.

I know I didnt look anywhere near that old at 30, hell I still don't at 43!

Williams and Russell were both born in 1951, so they were 35 but some of those guys had to be much older.

[–] AdmiralTugBenson 9 years ago

I really love this movie, but the timeline is pretty screwy. The ages of their children makes it even more confusing. I don't know why they didn't just make them older.

See you guys at the 10 year prison reunion - Ben Richards

[–] Traianus 9 years ago

Looking at the main actors in the film, a lot of them were in their early 20s in 1972. Robin Williams and Kurt Russell, for example, were both 21 in 1972. Pretty close. That's a lot better than a lot of movies that have people in their late 20s or early 30s playing teenagers.

If your'e in mid 30s or early 40s, surely you know that people in that age group can look a vast spectrum of ages depending on a variety of factors, such as their genes, how they've treated themselves (eating habits, exercise, drugs, etc.). I know people in their mid 30s who get mistaken all the time for being in their mid to late 20s, just as I know people in their mid-30s who look like they're close to 50. Heck, if we're sticking to 80s movies, for example, John Ashton who played Officer Taggart in Beverly Hills Cop was only about 35 when that movie was filmed; he looked plenty older.

It happens.

[–] Dan_Garten 9 years ago

Yeah.