tattoo?


does michelle williams have a tattoo on her lower back? at the very end of the film, when the girls are running outside to hold up their banner, you can see a large dark spot on michelle's lower back. is this a badly covered-up tattoo?

"There's no devil. It's just God when he drinks" - Tom Waits

reply

I came on here to ask the same thing. Sure looks like it, eh?

Vote for Ross Perot
OCD

reply

Yeah I think it is a tattoo which they had to cover up.

BRING OUT SEASON THREE OF "ONCE AND AGAIN" ON DVD!

reply

I'm sure enough that it is a tattoo that I submitted it to "Movie Mistakes".......

reply

It looks like a bad bruise.

Come forth, villagers. Bring thy torches and pitchforks.

reply

I'm on here for the same thing...thinking it may be in trivia or goofs. Just saw it in High-Def and it is absolutely a covered-up tattoo. They are obviously much older than "15" that they are playing in the flick (as you can tell by the ahem...end outfits). Kirsten would have been about 17...but Michelle was pushing 20 at that time.

reply

It is a tattoo. I saw it in a photoshoot of her somewhere.

About them being older.. Well that's not really that unusual for American 'teen' comedies.

Did you ever notice that people who believe in creationism look realy un-evolved? - Bill Hicks

reply

Yeah, like Rachel McAdams on Mean Girls. She was in her 30s, playing a high-school be-otch. Shouldn't have happened, but it puts Michelle Williams in a much more favorable light.

*He can't see he's got flies in his eyes 'cause he's got flies in his eyes.*

reply

Rachel was like between 25-27 making Mean Girls not 30s

reply

she was 28

reply

[deleted]

no, she looked younger. funny though that the woman playing Regina's mother was only about five years older. I'm pretty sure the whole cast of Dawson's Creek were in their early to mid twenties during the series

I know what you're thinking and you should be ashamed!

reply

That was my favorite scene. The girls looked amazing in the clothes they made.

reply