Just because it might be a higher risk pregnancy doesn't mean it's not possible. Janet Jackson just had a kid at 50. Also, I don't believe she was supposed to be playing her age, but I don't think she was playing the age of the character from the book either.

I thought it was refreshing that an older actress played the part since Hollywood typically ages down female characters.

@MirrorMask said:

Just because it might be a higher risk pregnancy doesn't mean it's not possible. Janet Jackson just had a kid at 50. Also, I don't believe she was supposed to be playing her age, but I don't think she was playing the age of the character from the book either.

I thought it was refreshing that an older actress played the part since Hollywood typically ages down female characters.

But Janet Jackson has the wealth to spend on fertility doctors. An average woman having a baby in her late 30s let alone early 50s is incredibly risky with a high chance of miscarriage or the baby having some kind of developmental disability.

Nothing against casting older actresses in leading roles, I'm just saying having her be pregnant at her age seemed like a bit of a stretch if you know what menopause is.

I thought it was kind of weird too, but I already knew her age. Maybe some people think she's younger? It seemed like Parminder Nagra's character was supposed to be older, but in reality, she's 11 years younger than Bullock and even she is in the risky pregnancy age. They doth did a good job imo and I enjoyed the movie, but I was curious if anyone else was thinking this.

If only Sandra Bullock's age was the problem... Have you seen the first scene? When she's talking to the kids, it's possibly the worst performance of this year.

She does look like Michael Jackson but then she always has.

Hahahaha, so true! Although it is better to look like Michael Jackson than having the face of Preacher's Arseface (aka Eugene), which is what happens to John Malkovich the whole time: https://i1.wp.com/californiarocker.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Malkovich-saves-Bird-Box-Courtesy-image.jpg?resize=1024%2C524

@cswood said:

Firstly, I'm going to assume she's had work done because her face looked very odd in this film, very Michael Jackson-esque. Secondly, she is playing a pregnant woman throughout most of the film. She is 54 this year. I know they hired her because she's Sandra Bullock but come on.

She's not disfigured or anything like Michael Jackson was... She doesn't look odd at all. She looks great in this movie. What do you have against her? Why are you greatly exaggerating her appearance?

@Video-Store-Vagrant said:

I LOVE SANDRA BULLOCK.BEEN A FAN SINCE THE EARLY 90S.EVEN TRACKED DOWN HER ****** EARLY FILMS LIKE HANGMAN AND FIRE ON THE AMAZON.UNFORTUNATELY,SHE HAS GONE THE ROUTE OF MOST ACTRESSES AND HAS TRYED TO KEEP HER FACE RELEVANT AND LED IT SLIGHTLY DOWN THE MICHAEL JACKSON PATH.SHES STILL HOT BUT NOT NEARLY AS HOT AS A SLIGHTLY WRINKLED MORE NATURAL SANDY BULLOCK WOULD BE.ALSO MY WIFE HAD MY DAUGHTER WHEN SHE WAS 41 AND WAS CALLED HIGH RISK AND WE HAD TO SEE THE DOCTOR TWICE A WEEK THE ENTIRE PREGNANCY.

I hope your child was born healthy.

@cswood said:

Firstly, I'm going to assume she's had work done because her face looked very odd in this film, very Michael Jackson-esque. Secondly, she is playing a pregnant woman throughout most of the film. She is 54 this year. I know they hired her because she's Sandra Bullock but come on.

He also thought, If it had been a more intense drama and a younger known actress, I would have finished watching the movie, I probably had a final cliche and quite boring, the fact that strangers arrived practically, years later and only the husband died and Sandra is completely healthy, it seemed completely unreal

@cswood said:

Firstly, I'm going to assume she's had work done because her face looked very odd in this film, very Michael Jackson-esque. Secondly, she is playing a pregnant woman throughout most of the film. She is 54 this year. I know they hired her because she's Sandra Bullock but come on.

They "hired" Bullock because she co-produced it. It's a supernatural movie about invisible monsters driving people crazy, and you're worried about her being too old to get pregnant by what, a few years? She doesn't seem to be hiding her age in the movie. Malorie comes right out and says she's considerably older than Tom, the vet she gets involved with later on. I assumed the character was mid-40s, and not every woman has menopause at 30...

Personally, I found Bullock playing a pregnant woman more believable than a 70 year old action star kicking the collective *** of a gang of 25 year old thugs as seen in several Hollywood turds per year.

@Damienracer said:

@Dedoc1967 said:

@cswood said:

Firstly, I'm going to assume she's had work done because her face looked very odd in this film, very Michael Jackson-esque. Secondly, she is playing a pregnant woman throughout most of the film. She is 54 this year. I know they hired her because she's Sandra Bullock but come on.

They "hired" Bullock because she co-produced it. It's a supernatural movie about invisible monsters driving people crazy, and you're worried about her being too old to get pregnant by what, a few years? She doesn't seem to be hiding her age in the movie. Malorie comes right out and says she's considerably older than Tom, the vet she gets involved with later on. I assumed the character was mid-40s, and not every woman has menopause at 30...

Lol so true. Never mind invisible suicidal inducing monsters let's be shocked, bothered and wowed by there being a more mature pregnant woman in the storyline.

Okay, seriously, let's use our logic here. Just because Bullock produced it doesn't mean she fit the role. Roger Moore was 58 when he made A View to a Kill, way too old to play James Bond. That's objective. A 50 year old woman being pregnant and giving birth to a healthy child without the aid of a doctor or fertility treatments is a reach to say the least. That's simple biology.

Now a lot of people watched the movie and seemed to have enjoyed it so this aspect wasn't enough to bother them, but that's clearly because a lot of people don't know human biology. It's like how someone who knows a lot about computers can't watch a techno thriller about hacking without rolling their eyes because of how nonsensical movies portray hacking, but to laymen they don't care because they don't know anything about computers.

So yeah, the fact I know more about female reproduction than the average person made this a bother for me. Also the fact that a young handsome guy, given the option, would choose to hook up with a pregnant woman 20+ years older than him instead of the hot young cop trainee was also pretty unbelievable the same way teen comedies where the hot chick sleeps with the school nerd is also unbelievable because it's obvious wish fulfilment.

@Damienracer said:

@cswood said:

@Damienracer said:

@Dedoc1967 said:

@cswood said:

Firstly, I'm going to assume she's had work done because her face looked very odd in this film, very Michael Jackson-esque. Secondly, she is playing a pregnant woman throughout most of the film. She is 54 this year. I know they hired her because she's Sandra Bullock but come on.

They "hired" Bullock because she co-produced it. It's a supernatural movie about invisible monsters driving people crazy, and you're worried about her being too old to get pregnant by what, a few years? She doesn't seem to be hiding her age in the movie. Malorie comes right out and says she's considerably older than Tom, the vet she gets involved with later on. I assumed the character was mid-40s, and not every woman has menopause at 30...

Lol so true. Never mind invisible suicidal inducing monsters let's be shocked, bothered and wowed by there being a more mature pregnant woman in the storyline.

Okay, seriously, let's use our logic here. Just because Bullock produced it doesn't mean she fit the role. Roger Moore was 58 when he made A View to a Kill, way too old to play James Bond. That's objective. A 50 year old woman being pregnant and giving birth to a healthy child without the aid of a doctor or fertility treatments is a reach to say the least. That's simple biology.

Now a lot of people watched the movie and seemed to have enjoyed it so this aspect wasn't enough to bother them, but that's clearly because a lot of people don't know human biology. It's like how someone who knows a lot about computers can't watch a techno thriller about hacking without rolling their eyes because of how nonsensical movies portray hacking, but to laymen they don't care because they don't know anything about computers.

So yeah, the fact I know more about female reproduction than the average person made this a bother for me. Also the fact that a young handsome guy, given the option, would choose to hook up with a pregnant woman 20+ years older than him instead of the hot young cop trainee was also pretty unbelievable the same way teen comedies where the hot chick sleeps with the school nerd is also unbelievable because it's obvious wish fulfilment.

Sandra Bullock still looks good so she's not your average old crone coming to kidnap young male newborns. Yes, it's not ideal to be middle aged and pregnant but it does happen in... You know, real life... That doesn't have suicidal telepathic monsters in it.

I assumed Tom was more drawn to her complexity and humanity, although Bullock still looks pretty good. It does feel like you're nitpicking.

Yes, I was talking to cswood.

@Damienracer said:

@Dedoc1967 said:

@Damienracer said:

@cswood said:

@Damienracer said:

@Dedoc1967 said:

@cswood said:

Firstly, I'm going to assume she's had work done because her face looked very odd in this film, very Michael Jackson-esque. Secondly, she is playing a pregnant woman throughout most of the film. She is 54 this year. I know they hired her because she's Sandra Bullock but come on.

They "hired" Bullock because she co-produced it. It's a supernatural movie about invisible monsters driving people crazy, and you're worried about her being too old to get pregnant by what, a few years? She doesn't seem to be hiding her age in the movie. Malorie comes right out and says she's considerably older than Tom, the vet she gets involved with later on. I assumed the character was mid-40s, and not every woman has menopause at 30...

Lol so true. Never mind invisible suicidal inducing monsters let's be shocked, bothered and wowed by there being a more mature pregnant woman in the storyline.

Okay, seriously, let's use our logic here. Just because Bullock produced it doesn't mean she fit the role. Roger Moore was 58 when he made A View to a Kill, way too old to play James Bond. That's objective. A 50 year old woman being pregnant and giving birth to a healthy child without the aid of a doctor or fertility treatments is a reach to say the least. That's simple biology.

Now a lot of people watched the movie and seemed to have enjoyed it so this aspect wasn't enough to bother them, but that's clearly because a lot of people don't know human biology. It's like how someone who knows a lot about computers can't watch a techno thriller about hacking without rolling their eyes because of how nonsensical movies portray hacking, but to laymen they don't care because they don't know anything about computers.

So yeah, the fact I know more about female reproduction than the average person made this a bother for me. Also the fact that a young handsome guy, given the option, would choose to hook up with a pregnant woman 20+ years older than him instead of the hot young cop trainee was also pretty unbelievable the same way teen comedies where the hot chick sleeps with the school nerd is also unbelievable because it's obvious wish fulfilment.

Sandra Bullock still looks good so she's not your average old crone coming to kidnap young male newborns. Yes, it's not ideal to be middle aged and pregnant but it does happen in... You know, real life... That doesn't have suicidal telepathic monsters in it.

I assumed Tom was more drawn to her complexity and humanity, although Bullock still looks pretty good. It does feel like you're nitpicking.

I think you meant the OP is nitpicking.

Ask any guy in his 20's if he had the chance to hook up with a pregnant 50 year old woman who "looks good for her age" or an attractive 30 year old non-pregnant woman in perfect shape, which one do you think most guys are going to pick?

And maybe you guys saw the movie on your phone or something but Bullock clearly had a LOT of makeup on. Many of the stills for the movie have her face notecable airbrushed and softened. I'm not saying she's an old hag but I am saying your average guy would not choose her if a younger, more attractive, less pregnant option were available.

But going back to biology, I see my facts about human reproduction were completely ignored because "she looks good for her age" trumps facts so I'll restate them. Even if Bullock were playing 10 years younger she should have been deep into menopause and shouldn't have been able to have a baby in the first place unless she was having special treatments. She's too old to play a pregnant woman, game set match.

@cswood said:

@Damienracer said:

@Dedoc1967 said:

@Damienracer said:

@cswood said:

@Damienracer said:

@Dedoc1967 said:

@cswood said:

Firstly, I'm going to assume she's had work done because her face looked very odd in this film, very Michael Jackson-esque. Secondly, she is playing a pregnant woman throughout most of the film. She is 54 this year. I know they hired her because she's Sandra Bullock but come on.

They "hired" Bullock because she co-produced it. It's a supernatural movie about invisible monsters driving people crazy, and you're worried about her being too old to get pregnant by what, a few years? She doesn't seem to be hiding her age in the movie. Malorie comes right out and says she's considerably older than Tom, the vet she gets involved with later on. I assumed the character was mid-40s, and not every woman has menopause at 30...

Lol so true. Never mind invisible suicidal inducing monsters let's be shocked, bothered and wowed by there being a more mature pregnant woman in the storyline.

Okay, seriously, let's use our logic here. Just because Bullock produced it doesn't mean she fit the role. Roger Moore was 58 when he made A View to a Kill, way too old to play James Bond. That's objective. A 50 year old woman being pregnant and giving birth to a healthy child without the aid of a doctor or fertility treatments is a reach to say the least. That's simple biology.

Now a lot of people watched the movie and seemed to have enjoyed it so this aspect wasn't enough to bother them, but that's clearly because a lot of people don't know human biology. It's like how someone who knows a lot about computers can't watch a techno thriller about hacking without rolling their eyes because of how nonsensical movies portray hacking, but to laymen they don't care because they don't know anything about computers.

So yeah, the fact I know more about female reproduction than the average person made this a bother for me. Also the fact that a young handsome guy, given the option, would choose to hook up with a pregnant woman 20+ years older than him instead of the hot young cop trainee was also pretty unbelievable the same way teen comedies where the hot chick sleeps with the school nerd is also unbelievable because it's obvious wish fulfilment.

Sandra Bullock still looks good so she's not your average old crone coming to kidnap young male newborns. Yes, it's not ideal to be middle aged and pregnant but it does happen in... You know, real life... That doesn't have suicidal telepathic monsters in it.

I assumed Tom was more drawn to her complexity and humanity, although Bullock still looks pretty good. It does feel like you're nitpicking.

I think you meant the OP is nitpicking.

Ask any guy in his 20's if he had the chance to hook up with a pregnant 50 year old woman who "looks good for her age" or an attractive 30 year old non-pregnant woman in perfect shape, which one do you think most guys are going to pick?

And maybe you guys saw the movie on your phone or something but Bullock clearly had a LOT of makeup on. Many of the stills for the movie have her face notecable airbrushed and softened. I'm not saying she's an old hag but I am saying your average guy would not choose her if a younger, more attractive, less pregnant option were available.

But going back to biology, I see my facts about human reproduction were completely ignored because "she looks good for her age" trumps facts so I'll restate them. Even if Bullock were playing 10 years younger she should have been deep into menopause and shouldn't have been able to have a baby in the first place unless she was having special treatments. She's too old to play a pregnant woman, game set match.

No offense, but you seem mildly obsessed. In the end, who cares?