Beauty & Body Image, Celebrity Quotes, Celebrity Weight & Measurements, Mila Kunis, Then and Now

Mila Kunis: ’95 pounds looked gross, but on camera, it looked amazing’

FP_6056755_RIJ_MOCA_GALA_111310 (2)

FP_6056755_RIJ_MOCA_GALA_111310-2 - Mila Kunis: '95 pounds looked gross, but on camera, it looked amazing'

On losing 20 pounds for her role as a ballerina:

“My mom freaked out. Everybody started panicking. She was like, ‘You have to promise me this isn’t going to affect you.’ I was like, ‘I promise it won’t, but it might take me a little time to be OK with having a little more fat on me.'”

On how being ultra-skinny looks in reality versus on camera:

“I could see why this industry is so f**ked up, because at 95 pounds, I would literally look at myself in the mirror and I was like, ‘Oh my God! I had no shape, no boobs, no a**… All you saw was bone. I was like, ‘This looks gross’. But in photographs and on film, it looked amazing…

It took me five months to lose 20 pounds, but it took me just five days – days! – to gain it all back.

Pictured: left, Mila in February 2010, while she was still filming and on the right, Mila these days. Can you see the 20 pound difference (keep in mind she gains more on her middle / upper half)?

Further info: Mila is 5’4” (her words) – she must have been around 95 pounds (BMI 16.3) on the left and around 115 lbs (BMI 19.7) on the right.

See more pictures of Mila at her skinniest in THIS post!

Incoming search terms:

mila kunis height, how tall is mila kunis, mila kunis weight, mila kunis height and weight, mila kunis measurements, how much does mila kunis weigh, mila kunis height weight, 95 pounds, 95 lbs, 95 pounds in kg
Previous ArticleNext Article
  • Ashes

    Although I don’t think the white dress is particularly flattering, I think she looks better on the right. She looks like a bit of a bobble head on the left IMO.

  • Laura

    I think she looks maybe 10 lbs heavier. You can tell in her arms and face. She’s so beautiful, and her features look so chiseled when she is thin. Hate to say it, but I like her either way.
    And 20 lbs in 5 days is impossible. She’d have to have been eating 14,000 calories a day! Must have been water weight.

    • Karin

      Some of it was probably water weight, since I’m sure she was following a strict diet, but you’d be surprised how quickly your body grabs and holds onto calories when it’s been deprived and pushed past its set point.

    • Erica

      I don’t think it’s impossible. Just as Laura said, if you push your body to the brink of starvation – and 95lbs is definitely the brink – it will soak up calories and store fat like you wouldn’t believe when you start feeding it normally again! It’s really not a good idea to play with your metabolism like that – but I am sure she is trying to be as healthy as possible now.

      • solaxia

        yep sadly this is true. i learnt that the hard way =S

        • southerngumdrops

          me too 🙁 i stopped eating for a while and lost 20 lbs……as soon as i started eating again i gained 50 lbs in less than a month and a half. and once you d that it’s a b*tch to get back down to your previous weight.

          it’s crazy how much you can gain after you mess with your metabolism

          • solaxia

            ugh tell me about it! I try my best NEVER to skip meals ect anymore. It was so hard to kick start my metabolism again. Lately I havent been eating much because I dont have much money and just really stressed, and i lost some weight but im terrified of putting it all back on again! Ugh such a pain

      • Kelly

        95 lbs is not always the “brink” of starvation. depends on your body, of course. I am 5 foot, 93 pounds, and I eat 1500 calories a day, give or take.

        • Jessica

          She’s 5’4″.
          There’s a huge difference in being 5′ and 90-something pounds and being 4 inches taller and 90-something pounds.

          • Jessica Ferraro

            If she’s 5’4″, I’m Amazonian.

        • padme

          The general rule is to add 5 lbs per inch. So if you want to compare yourself to Mila’s weight, you would have to subtract 20 lbs. Do you think you’d be on the brink of starvation at 75 lbs?

          • kate1st

            95lb at 5ft4 is comparable to about 80lb at 5ft….still way too low anyway.

          • Amy

            Well, that’s not starvation at all if you go by the 5 lb/inch rule. For my 6’0 that would be the same as 135 lbs…and I’m a steady 125! Ten pounds lighter would be gross, but I look great where I am.

          • sweet_tart87

            Amy your math is wayyy off. If you go with the five lb for every inch starting at 100lbs-5ft. At 6ft tall 12 additional inches, 5 lbs for every inch 12×5=60 so your total weight should be 160 based on that rule. Now whether 125 natural for you is entirely different hopefully ur not starving urself to that weight. Which is underweight by any measurable scale.

          • Kate1st

            5lb per inch rule is very vague and doesn’t apply when dealing with very low weights for the height.

            For example, 5ft4 and 135lb may be comparable to 6ft and 175lb, but 5ft4 and 95lb is more comparable to 125lb at 6ft.

      • Mary

        I’m about 100 and I’m 5’3. I could lose some weight without being severely unhealthy. I mean, I was really sad for about a week or two and lost 5 pounds, meaning I was her weight. So I don’t think it’s that bad to be at that weight for a bit. Props to her for really getting into her role.

      • Jessica

        95 pounds is not “the brink of starvation.” I’m 5’2 and 93 pounds. I don’t starve myself to be that weight either. In fact, I eat a nice, hearty breakfast everyday, I eat a decent lunch, and a very large dinner. I barely exercise, the only work out I get is from using my diaphragm during choir. And I don’t look unhealthy and I’m very curvy. 10 in difference between my waist and my hips/bust. I can’t gain weight, and saying that someone who is 95 pounds looks sick is just rude and a general assumption.

        • Emma Hallows

          But you’re generalising yourself with that example. Have you considered that peoples frame, fat deposition and body overall is different from yours? So theres no point talking about yourself its an individual thing.
          Very few people can naturally/healthily be 95lbs you need to bare that in mind. You need to be of a small frame/bone structure, fairly short, genetically small and/or own a fast metabolism.
          Mila doesnt thats why being that small she and other people are reacting like that about that weight so calm down.

        • That wasn’t the point. For Mila, who’s natural weight is 20 lbs more- it was the brink of starvation.

  • Erica

    It isn’t hard to see that she has gained back the weight, even with the loose-fitting dress – her face looks fuller and her arms and legs look less bony in the second photo.
    She’s so right about gaining weight fast, but losing it so slow. It is really easy for me to put on weight, if I am just a little over-indulgent, it shows on the scales within a day or two! But losing it is a different matter – a couple of pounds is not that hard, but more than that takes a lot of effort and time.
    I’m the same height as her but at 115lbs I would look really frail – I just have a bigger build – she looks really good though. 95lbs is just downright scary – I’d be worried about her health at that weight. Thank goodness she didn’t stay that thin.
    It’s frightening that she got down to such a low weight and still looked okay on camera but not in person! What’s the science behind that?!

    • monkey

      About the camera, your right, shouldn’t they adjust the camera to flatter her body instead of adjusting her body just to look good on camera?

    • mia

      The reason the camera “adds” weight is that you’re taking a 3D object and turning it into a 2D image. It flattens out the subject.

      • teaweed

        Thanks for explaining that. I’ve heard the camera adds weight thing for years and always wondered why.

  • Polly

    Good for her! Some actresses see weightloss for a film as a good inclination to become and stay thinner. She looks so much better in the white dress. I’d say she’s gained about 12-15 lbs back, not 20.

  • Hayhay

    Just another example of an actress using her body as a product for a role.
    No matter how she lost the weight, you can tell by how fast she gained it back that she didn’t lose it in a very healthy way. When you lose weight the right way (diet and exercise) the body responds to it better and the weight stays off. She was obviously starving hersellf, and after the movie wrapped she finally got to pig out, and the weight came right back.
    Hey, if I was getting paid that much to lose some weight for a movie, I prob would starve myself too lol. Wouldn’t you?

    • There’s no “healthy” way of losing weight to get to a BMI of 16. The reason her body responded to that is because when you lose under the 18-19 point you lose:
      – bone
      – muscle
      – organ tissue

      Basically your body eats itself up, since you’re pushing it to be underweight. And it will fight it back.

      It find it sad that so many people in the linked post said she looked amazing. Basically our entire perception of beauty is so warped, we find a dangerously starved individual attractive.
      When you get that skinny, if you do light exercise you could have a heart attack and DIE. Because from the weight loss your heart muscle has been so thinned and weakened, you’re basically worse then an 90 year old.

      How screwed up is our body image ideal that we think THAT is what is attractive. Heck, not only attractive, but healthy-looking and fit. Sad sad sad.

      • Annie

        I agree with your post whole heartedly. If it took Mila 5 months to lose 20 lbs., it’s because she was already slightly underweight to begin with. She had to literally force her body to starve, and there’s no “healthy” way to do that.

        • Casey

          That’s assuming that she was already dieting restricting to be the small size she usually is, which is a big assumption.

          If she was eating normally and the result was her small size, losing another 20 pounds would be as difficult for her as with anyone else.

          The only issue is she would approach health problems from undereating faster than others because she has less fat and muscle reserves than the average person.

      • snoops

        “When you get that skinny, if you do light exercise you could have a heart attack and DIE. Because from the weight loss your heart muscle has been so thinned and weakened, you’re basically worse then an 90 year old. ”

        Well I am “that thin” or close to that range (16-17 BMI) and I am able to do more than light exercise without having a heart attack and dying. The thing is some people just are naturally petite in the size of their frame and dont gain weight easy either – doesnt mean we are unhealthy (or unattractive).

        I dont think anyone should ever starve themselves or push themselves below their natural kind of “set-point” weight and if they do then yes as you say their body will literally begin to eat itself for lack of any other food and in the end this can be deadly – but please dont forget that some of us are naturally thin and we shouldnt be called unattractive or compared to frail old 90 yr olds :S

        • Lisa

          My BMI is around the high 17s, but a good portion of it is muscle. I keep active, do cardio/strength, and eat a basically clean diet. I do actually have a little flab on my stomach no matter what, but there’s no sense in fretting over it… it’s not like anyone can tell me to lose weight!!

          I feel pretty strong, but there are times when I think I LOOK like a frail 90 year old. lol.Lotta bones hangin’ around this frame of mine.

        • Karin

          I don’t think suzushii was trying to insult people like you; (s)he was just pointing out that for the vast, vast majority of people, going under a BMI of 18 does very bad things to your body. Only a tiny portion of people can have a BMI under 18 without the health problems associated with such a low BMI, which is why the WHO and the medical establishment are sticklers to 18 being the floor of the BMI range.

          • Exactly, thank you. There are some people, a small minority who have a very small, delicate build, and are NATURALLY that weight. Basically, they eat normally to be that small. Asians in particular are more likely to get away with a small BMI. Also, if you’re 18 and under normal BMI rules don’t apply.

            But you have to understand you’re an exception. I am 5’4, and 112 pounds and I look skinnier then she does on the right. Just slightly bigger then the left pic. There is NO WAY in hell I can lose 15-20 pounds. I am just very compact. And I have quite a small bone structure, not the smallest, but definitely smaller then average.

            99% of the people could not lose that much.

        • mel

          Exactly, BMI doesn’t determine how healthy you are. Believe it or not, I’ve been down to a BMI of 14.8 (5’5″ and 89 lbs) while I was playing tennis for 8 hours a day, every day, for around 4 weeks. Even at my lowest weight this year (5’6″ and 98) I was perfectly healthy. I have tons of energy and don’t feel like a “frail 90-year-old.” Right now my BMI is higher, but that doesn’t mean’m healthier than I was before. BMI doesn’t say anything about a person until you really look at them personally and examine their eating habits.

          • mel

            *mean I’m, not mean’m

          • Keep on telling yourself that 5’5 and 89 is healthy. Because the only person you would be fooling is yourself.

          • mel

            Um, well since you just pointed out below that Asians are an exception to the rule, I guess I am perfectly healthy. And no I’m not fooling myself – I have regular checkups and my doctor said I was fine. It could also be that I’m young. In no way am I delusional.

          • Karin

            About your comment downstream, “Asians are an exception to the rule…” no we’re not. We’re an exception to the rule for the BMI ceiling (which is dropped from 24.9 to 23.5), but the WHO and the medical establishment are very firm about a BMI of 18 as been the bottom limit. As for your doctor saying that you’re fine…mine always goes into a tizzy when I start approaching 18. Different standards, I guess.

      • anonymous

        Well, I don’t think that is fair. Mila herself said in person she looked frightening but on film and in photographs she looked amazing. People commenting here on her looks to the left are commenting on how she looks in the photograph not as how they saw her in real life.
        for years people have said the camera adds 10 to 15 pounds.I don’t know the optical science of that but it does appear to be true. So the Mila version people think looks good does not to their eyes weigh 95 pounds. And at 5’4 weighing 105 to 110 a person might look think but exceptionally good. Remember Jessica Simpson in her car wash video and the black dress when she was at her thinnest? In real life she probably looked horrible, but on screen pretty unbelievable if you prefer thin body types. Same is true for lots of actresses or even regualar people who go Ugh at their pictures but are pretty satisfied with what they see in the mirror.

        • solaxia

          yep thats me all over!

  • Gigi

    Ahhh! I LOVE Mila posts. Thank you, Versus. She definitely looks better on the right, particularly her face.

  • Padme

    I think she looks better in left pic, but mostly because of the more flattering outfit. She seems to have a pretty good grasp on reality, she knew she looked unhealthy and chose to gain it back after the film.

    And 20 lbs in a week is not impossible if you’ve been starving yourself & suddenly start bingeing. She may have been exaggerating though. The point is it takes forever to lose weight but you can gain it all back so fast.

    • I think people think she looks good because she’s wearing flattering clothes. Seriously, I once dropped about 10 pounds, and got down to 5’4 105 pounds due to being sick, and holy sh. I looked HORRIBLE naked. Just skin and bones sticking out everywhere, it was hard to sit down, because i had no bum anymore.

      Now the warped thing was, I stil took care to dress up in flattering clothes and let me tell you, I got SO many compliments. It was SICK to hear girls tell me what great diet I did. Diet?

      Oh it was pneumonia and I almost died. I couldn’t lift my leg to climb two stairs because most of my muscle wasted away. I had fought so hard to become a runner and in a matter of weeks I was reduced to getting tired from standing for 5 minutes.

      And I got COMPLIMENTS on how I looked.

      Biggest reality check I’ve ever had in my life. People’s perceptions are EFFED up.

      • mel

        Okay, that’s you, but when I get down to 5’6″ and 105, I don’t look sick at all! Like I said, I was down to 89 pounds (albeit at an inch shorter) and I didn’t have any crazy bones sticking out. My whole point is you can’t say for sure whether someone is healthy or not based on their weight!

  • vivi

    95lbs is not that bad for 5’4”

    • Annie

      No, it’s not bad at all to cause a heart attack, serious autoimmune disorders and general ill health.

    • Erica

      Yes, it most certainly is bad! Very few women would be healthy at 95lbs and 5’4″! That’s on the low side of normal if you’re 5″ tall! 95lbs is not a healthy weight for many – it’s very light indeed for an adult woman!

      • vivi

        i dunno…but lots of my friends are about 98lbs and 5’4″, they are all very healthy, eat almost whatever. but they do live in asia, so maybe it’s the food.

        • no, it’s the fact that they’re asian. Asians have different BMI rules. For example, they are considered overweight at 23 BMI, not 25 like caucasians and other races. It’s not absolute, but most asians can get away with having a ~17 BMI and be healthy.

          However having an artifically low weight is a huge problem in Japan for example. They diet excessively, and as a result have one of the highest rates of osteoporosis on the planet.

          Actions have consequences. Being skinny is never worth your life and your health.

          • kate1st

            Yes, it’s a very different story for asians. They have tiny bone structure and tend to be ectmorph body types. A 5ft4 asian woman weighing 98lb is probably comparable to a 5ft4 western woman weighing 110lb.

    • asha

      I’m four inches shorter, so 5 feet tall, and all of my doctors have told me that 95 is MY healthy goal weight. From this I doubt it is healthy for Mila to weigh that much.

    • kate1st

      Not that bad?? Yeah if you are like 12 years old……..

      • Halle

        I do not really understand your comment, kate1st. I’m around 5’4″, maybe 5’3″, and I am 97 lbs. My weight fluctuates constantly, and I usually am from 93-98 lbs. Your comment offended me a bit, because just because someone is small and petite does NOT mean they look or are 12 years old. I have a very curvy body, and I just wanted to tell you it is possible to be a low weight and curvy/feminine.
        (btw, my BMI is supposedly “underweight,” even though I look nowhere near that, so I don’t really pay attention to all this BMI stuff, as it is often not accurate)

        • I agree Halle. I am ‘technically underweight’ according to BMI’s and I can guarantee I don’t look like a 12 year old. BMI’s aren’t an accurate indicator of health as they fail to take many things into account.

          • Erica

            This goes the other way too. I am technically overweight according to BMI, but it surprised my doctor as I don’t look that big. The nurse who worked out the BMI said that she understands as she is like you and Halle – underweight, techincally, but not unhealthily thin.
            It really depends on your frame and how the weight is distributed. So, I agree, BMI is not a good measure of health in every case.

        • kate1st

          Sorry, didn’t mean to offend. It’s just generally speaking MOST women that height/weight would be underweight. If someone has a particularly small frame, that’s different. But also sometimes people are underweight because they lack lean mass, i.e. have low bone density or not enough muscle. This can be vastly improved with weight training and increasing protein intake.

          • It sounds like you’re suggesting we eat protein and weight train. Thank you for the advice but I weight train three days a week and have amazing muscle tone whilst still being a low weight. It is possible.

          • kate1st

            Like I said, if someone naturally has a small frame that’s a different story. But for those women who go on extreme diets for example, they are at a low BMI because they lost lean mass. I’m understand there are a women out there who naturally have low BMI’s due to their build and body type.

        • mel

          Exactly Halle! I used to have a BMI of 15-16, and I still had curvy measurements (33-32-33). Now I’m heavier, but I don’t look any curvier, I just maintained the same proportions (34-24-35). A low weight, as long as it’s natural, will not do away with your curves. You may appear slimmer overall, but you won’t look like a 12 year old! People who are naturally thin will gain/lose proportionally without losing their curves.

          • mel

            *33-23-33, not 33-32-33

    • Ella

      It really depends on your body frame and composition. Some 5’4″ girls can be perfectly healthy and naturally small at 95 lbs. That’s my height, and if I get below 120 lbs, I get incredibly bony and skinny to the point of being sickly. At 130 I wear a size 2-4, but on some girls that height and weight would be more like a 8-10

    • Kimberly

      For most women who are 5’4″, yes it is. We’re talking about the average woman. I’m not sure why people in this thread can’t understand that. I am 5’4″ and a mesomorph. I’ve been advised not to go under 130 because it doesn’t suit my frame. I would have to lose muscle and that’s not advisable. Most people think I weight about 115-120.

      • mel

        Yes, I can’t speak for everyone else, but I understand that. It’s purely due to bone structure and musculature. But it’s when people start saying that whoever is under a certain weight – say under 95 pounds – looks sick and like a 12 year old, that I disagree. The average woman may have an ideal weight of 125-130 at around 5’4″ and 5’5″, but just because most people are like that, doesn’t mean the people whose ideal weights are lower should be criticized and called sick, frail, and unhealthy for it (I’m not saying that the criticsm came from you, just in general).

        • Kimberly

          I was commenting that it’s not normal (as in the norm or median) for a woman of my height to weigh less than 100 lbs. I know very few women who are my height and weigh 95 lbs. And you must admit that some people who are under 100 lbs have eating and weight issues. We always assume that if someone looks healthy on the outside, nothing is going on on the inside. A lot of women have eating issues and most don’t admit it until later when they have it under control. I notice that a lot of people on this site who claim they around this weight also admit to having issues. It’s certainly not a problem for everybody who is so slight but it is a problem for some. Does that make sense? It’s late…:) I’m past my bedtime.

          • mel

            Yeah, I get your point. But it just angers me when I see comments claiming my weight – or a weight similar to mine – is unhealthy! Who is to say I’m unhealthy at that weight? The people who are saying that don’t know me, haven’t seen me, and certainly don’t know what I eat or how I work out. And again, I’m not pinpointing you here, this is just from comments I’ve seen in general.

      • solaxia

        i am usually the same. I weigh around the same as you (though havent weighed myself in a while) and people always think I weigh less than i do. If you have a lot of muscle mass it also doesnt mean that you are any bigger than others. People tend to equate muscle with bulk

  • Katy

    She looks beautiful in both photos, but the one on the left she looks way too thin. She’s always been thin though, because I remember on that 70s show they made jokes about her being “100 pounds soaking wet”. But it’s nice to know that 100 pounds is actually really unrealisitc and not sustanable. I’m 5’6 and 120-125 pounds and i always feel large and not skinny, but it seems that if mila can look good at that sort of bmi, so could I!

  • lc

    Well, I think Mila is absolutely gorgeous and does look okay at this weight. Honestly, it may not be healthy, but to me, she does NOT look starved, bony, or unhealthy; appearance-wise.

    • Laura

      I agree, she is naturally petite and tiny so the picture on the left doesn’t look that bad. Although I agree for most normal people who are 5’4” 95 pounds is completely ridiculous it doesn’t look bad on Mila. Then again it all depends on the pictures though.

      • kate1st

        The point is she said it ONLY looked good in pictures, but in real life was horribly underweight for her.

        • lc

          Maybe, but I doubt I’d feel different if I saw her in person.

          • kate1st

            You would if she looked about 15lb less IRL!

          • lc

            Well, the thing is, based on this pic, she looks okay. So it’s hard to believe she wouldn’t IRL.

          • kate1st

            Yes……’based on the pic’, which is the whole point she’s trying to get across….that she looked good in pics at 95lb BUT not in person.

  • Cam

    can anyone explain to me how people look bigger on film versus in real life?it perplexes me.please and thank you:)

    • mooks

      basically the camera is limited in its perspective, it is capturing and storing the image two dimensionally, and the loss of depth creates a slight warping effect.

    • Karin

      Camera lenses distort the image. Many things factor into an image–curvature of lens, focal point, etc–and since a camera lens is not the exact replica of the lens of our own eyes, what the camera “sees” and what you “see” will be different.

    • kate1st

      Camera is 2D image of something 3D. Hence things end up looking flatter and wider due to it not being able to capture the curves and angles of a person’s body.

  • Lisa

    She looks good in both. I think it’s because she’s petite that she doesn’t look like a wrecked pile of bones, but who’s to say how she felt at the time. Either way, she is gorgeous.

  • amazon

    i can’t see any difference. maybe if she were wearing the same outfit. I would say she shoudl never have agreed/been asked to lose it in the first place. we all know she is not a ballet dancer but an actor playing a role that she will be body doubled by a real dancer when the dancing requires it, so what was the point. learn the posture, but she was more than slim enough to convince enough without losing extra. to go this low wasn’t healthy.
    on another point- my bmi is lower than hers in the second picture, yet i would say I look about 7-9 lbs heavier. and I gain mostly in the middle. wierd.

  • Lee

    I think her body in the right picture is better… but the overall look (hair, makeup, clothing choice) of the left one is better. Plus she looks happier in the left one.

  • Nessa

    I think she is naturally skinny, I just can”t imagine her any other way

  • joku

    i’m so glad she gained it all back

    she looks so healthy and beautiful again

  • Kt

    I really hate to say this since she really had to work hard to lose that weight that got her below 18 BMI (not that BMI is the be all and end all) but i think she looks great both ways, she seems to have a petite frame and doesn’t look grossly thin in the black dress. Definitely prefer her face with the extra weight though, her features are harsher when she’s thinner.
    But she mentions she looked great on camera at the smaller weight, but not so much in person, so maybe that explains it all.

    Regardless, stunning girl.

  • The fact that anyone has to starve themselves down to a BMI of 16.3 for a movie shows that there is a problem in Hollywood!

    That said, I believe when she says that she looked stunning on camera. Sometimes, when I get my picture taken from an unflattering angle I seem to look so much heavier in it than I actually am! It’s weird.

    • Casey

      She was starving herself down to play a ballerina. It’s not a Hollywood thing, it’s a ballet thing more than anything. Ballet has the second largest number of eating disorder cases.

      • Yes, but she didn’t slim down to try out for the Bolshoi ballet; she slimmed down for a Hollywood movie.

        Moreover, it is a Hollywood thing for, as we all know, Hollywood has made such demands in the past either for vanity or a method acting tactic. For Mila it is clearly a case of method acting, altering her body to look like a typical ballerina, as Jared Leto gained weight to resemble Lennon’s killer. It is clearly not a healthy option, but it is what actors do to bring authenticity to films.

        But miss polyglot has a point in that Hollywood does have a problem with expecting actors to reach certain standards to be employable. Many actors have given testimony that their agents have told them point blank that they would get more work if they were slimmer. But I don’t think it applies in Mila’s case, for as I said, she lost the weight for a movie role and put it back. I’m not necessarily advocating such practises but I’m putting it into context of method acting.

  • It must have been hard for her to lose the weight as she was already tiny to begin with. I wish she was wearing a tighter dress on the right for a better comparison but to me she looks great in borh

  • Anna

    I saw Mila in person with her bf Macaulay Culkin in Washington Square Park a while back. Her face is super gorgeous in person, but I’m personally not a huge fan of her body. She is sooooo tiny, very short and super skinny. Her ass is as flat as a board! Her jeans were falling down and you could see her bright orange thong very clearly. I think her face is gorgeous though.

    • kate1st

      Anna, would you say she looked much thinner than the above pic on the left? Because some people just don’t seem to be getting it….her point was that she photos well at that weight but IRL looked much too skinny.

      • Anna

        Absolutely!! She looked much thinner in real life than that photo. She was sooo tiny and fragile, far too skinny in my opinion. And yes, I do believe her point was that she photographs well at that weight, but in reality, she looks much much thinner.

        • solaxia

          see…i always (these days) look like a mammoth in pics. When I was underweight, I looked fairly normal. It’s wierd. I just think how skinny these celebs must be in real life. They look skinny in pics so they must look absolutely TINY in real life. Think all the VS models, and Megan Fox etc. I bet even ‘curvy’ people like Halle Berry etc are tiny in real life too

          • Casey

            I’ve seen two VS models in real life (Rosie and Candice), and they were both larger than how they appear in pictures.

            This 3D into 2D effect is grossly exaggerated. Yes it exists, but it’s a minor effect that doesn’t compare to the effects of lighting and angle. Or at least, lighting and angle moderate its effect.

            And most modern digital cameras compensate for that (video cameras, not so much, but photo cameras, yes). I’ve had pictures of myself where I looked 20 pounds thinner than I was, and 20 pounds larger than I was.

            So I highly doubt that all these celebrities are just walking skeletons in real life. I think their pictures are a good representation of how they actually look.

            I also think women in general think of themselves as larger than they are, so when they see women smaller then them, they think the discrepancy is bigger than it is. If you’re going to talk about the whole 3D into 2D effect, you have to remember that it applies to you as well. So there is no difference in how much thinner celebrities are than you….If a celebrity looks 20 pounds thinner than you in your picture to their picture, they are 20 pounds thinner than you in real life, not 40 pounds like you may think because you’re still comparing picture-you to not picture-them.

        • southerngumdrops

          anyone who’s seen celebs in person will tell you this. it’s sad how tiny they have to be in real life to look normal on tv.

          when i was anorexic for a while i looked AMAZING in photos! it was crazy. but now that i’m at a healthy weight i look like a whale in photos.

  • Sofia

    In the first picture she has a slight anorexic Portia de Rossi gaunt face thing going on. I don’t like her hair/make up in the 2nd photo, but when I put that aside I think she looks a lot better with the extra weight.

  • Casey

    I like her face on the left picture more actually, although it might just be the makeup and lighting. However, I think her body looks better in the right picture, even if the dress isn’t the most flattering. You can tell by her legs…they look more shapely in the right picture.

    But even if there are people who think she looks better in the left picture, keep in mind that for this particular celebrity (Mila), it is not good to look like that. She doesn’t look like that from healthy habits, so to encourage her to be like that and encourage that look is just not right.

  • izzy

    I thought she was 5’3.
    Anyway, she’s nowhere near (or ever was) 115lbs.
    I’d say 105 is her normal weight which would give her a BMI of 18.6.

    • I’ve read that she’s actually about 5’2-5’3. She looks that to me, more so than 5’4

  • nannou

    I love her eyes

  • ithunk

    i dont think she looks better on the left because she was skinnier, i think she looks better because she washed her face, combed her hair and dry cleaned her dress before shashaying down the red carpet.

    in other words, she needs to clean that mess up

    • eww

      she looks greasy in the second pic!

  • aj

    Thanks for this post versus, personally I really appreciate it when you post weights/bmis of celebrities

  • Uneedtoknow

    the woman is trying to say, if you have no boobs,no ass,no shape, and was super bony. (this is me,naturally) you are gross.What a sad world.Maybe people should really stop talking about weight and start talking about other things.

    • MrsEllis

      Yea but you’ll probably have to learn basic grammar rules if you want to talk about anything else.

      • solaxia

        LOL MrsEllis…I had to have a chuckle at that!
        Uneedtoknow- I don’t think that’s what Mila was saying. I think she was referring to herself…I always throught she looked cuter with more meat on that 70’s show. However, I know some people are just naturally that thin, and they suit it!

    • she’s referring to how SHE looked, not other people.

  • Melania

    She is gorgeous and would look good at any reasonable weight. I think its so great that she isn’t striving to be impossibly skinny and being open about it. She is a wonderful example of a classy, beautiful, modern celebrity. They seem few and far between these days.

  • Kate

    She is actually listed at 5’3″ on Google and other websites all have her listed at that height as well. She’d still be at a BMI of 16.8, clearly not healthy. at least she has such a healthy attitude about knowing it was a bad weight and speaking out about it. I think it’s sad when I clicked that link about her thinnest pictures on here and most of the comments were praising that she looked fantastic at that weight. Sad how warped we’re all getting isn’t it?

  • jjj

    On the photo on the left, she looks much more youthful, happy, and cleaner looking. She looks much older on the right.

    Hopefully she doesn’t gain too much.

    • Jess

      I totally agree!!

  • Sidney

    Yes she does look fabulous at that tiny weight. I sometimes think i look like a whale (well at the very least chubby) in pics and then i think do i really see myself in a warped way irl, so it’s kinda nice to know how different it really looks through the lens. But a BMI of 16, really? If that is true, it makes me think how incredibly underweight all the other celebs are. Bc to me she looks tiny and slightly fragile but still perfectly normal in that left picture. And my skinniest friends are all still around BMI 17-19 or thereabouts, and some of them look msuch more sceletal than Mila here. Of course frame counts, but 16 just sounds very very low to me. I’m honestly surprised to see how good she looks at that weight, again, if it is really true she was only 95 at that time.

  • She looks a million times better on the right, in the white dress.Healthier, happier, like she’s part of *this* world, not trying to escape from it.

  • Ana

    Wow thats 43kgs, that is really tiny! I def agree the camera adds pounds though 🙁

    The newer pic is really unflattering dress/makeup but from what you can see her body looks still slim in that pic.

    • Priscila

      It’s not that tiny I’m 5’3 tall and 42kg, but my doctor says it’s a fine and healthy weight.

      • Sa

        I’m 5’3 and used to weight 42kg (92.4lbs) until march of this year. Nobody would EVER say that it was a healthy weight. I simply hated being that thin, so I started working out. Today I weight around 51kg (112lbs) and still have a hard time looking at myself. Wish i was up to 55kg (121lbs).

        • Priscila

          Well, it’s sad that you have a hard time looking at yourself.
          Some people think I am too skinny and unhealthy , but many doctors have told me this is just my normal weight and that I should stop trying to get fatter (I used to take supplements and meds).
          I learned to love my body and not to be ashamed of it. This body allows me to do so many wonderful things that I wont spend time hating it.
          Also, I do exercise sometimes, but I don’t want to be too muscular and I am not a big fan of exercising anyway… I am a food lover, I’m always cooking and eating.

          • Cristina

            So you don’t exercise yet you are perfectly healthy and your doctor encourages you not to exercise. Sure. Troll. Or just not smart. Please, if you are making up things, make sure you get your facts straight. And if they are straight, someone should sue that guy for malpraxis.

          • Priscila

            @Cristina
            You sound mad. lol.
            I’m not making up anything.
            I said “I do exercise sometimes”: “sometimes” does not equal “never”.
            Should I sue several doctors for malpraxis? They all did lots of tests and have come to the same conclusion. I said they encourage me to stop taking supplements, meds and worry so much about my weight. I don’t know how you got to the conclusion they told me not to exercise….

  • Lia

    She’s not 5’4, she’s more like 5’2 – 5’3 according to other sources, shorter actresses always like to add an inch or two when asked their height in interviews (they would give their height with heels on) no way she is 5’4 and 95 pounds in the photo but I would believe it if she is 5’2 – 5’3, she looks good, not too thin, but definitely not BMI of 16.3, but 17 is more accurate. I am 5’4 17 BMI and IRL look slightly thinner than her in the photo and pretty much the same as her in the photo, camera really does make super skinny people look thin, thin people look normal-slim, and normal-slim people look average-slim etc etc so people who look super skinny in photos (rachel zoe) probably look like a walking
    skeleton IRL.

  • fabz16

    The only problem I have with people saying she looked good/better in the pic on the left is that people forget, like she said, being skinny looks ok on film and camera because it adds pounds. In real life she probably looked even smaller which is why her family were so worried for her.

    • kate1st

      Yes exactly! The amount of people saying ‘but yeah she looked great on the left pic’ are entirely missing the point of this post. You just want to bang your head on a brick wall………

      • Ysatis

        ICAM.

  • s.

    I appreciate her candid honesty. She admits to the psychological impact of weight loss, especially in her industry, while still seeming like she has a good head on her shoulders..

    This picture above doesn’t do justice to just HOW THIN she was. Please look at VS’s link to more photos.. in one she looks positively sickly really. I like Mila’s comments here and the way she speaks openly and honestly.

  • siennagold

    I don’t think you can gain 20 lbs in 5 days!

    • Lolita B.

      You can, and do after starving yourself. It’s called “refeeding syndrome”, and a lot of people die from it in recovery. It’s why you see those starving babies in 3rd world countries who are grossly malnourished but have bloated bellies. More than the lack of food, when you starve yourself you become drastically, drastically dehydrated (which is why you find many Anorexics who faint). To lose the weight, she had to have restricted liquid consumption as well. As you start to eat, even small meals after a period of prolonged starvation, your body attaches to every ounce of liquid it can get. From the food, you absorb the salt faster than you naturally would, and the nutrients are literally soaked up into you. I once entered a facility at 84 lbs and five days later of regimented eating I weighed in at 103 lbs. I almost died from it. Your belly expands from the gastric juices and it can cause heart failure. I believe that it took her five days to gain it back, and I believe she probably barely ate anything in that time to gain it. The person who said she would have had to eat 14,000 calories a day to gain that fast is wrong, these are just facts.

  • Emily

    Mila looks sick on the left and absolutely glowy and gorgeous on the right. I still prefer more curves, but she looks healthy on the right.

  • wyndie

    I prefer the ‘bigger’ mila, even in photos. She just looks so stretched out and icky when shes 95lbs.

  • Jamie

    I think she looks much better in the picture where she is healthier and a bit more curvy (if she is even what you can call curvy) She looked sick in the other one. However i find it REALLY far fetched that she would be able to gain TWNETY pounds…water weight or no water weight, in five days! Now, I understand she was basically starving and excercsing dramatically ect ect. But from experince, I have been dramatically more compromised weight to height wise, at a bmi as low as 9 at one point. (and yes I am telling the truth, I was anorexic, with another serious physical health condition accomplying that) And when I have gone into recovery (more than once, sometimes at a higher bmi, such as 11, 13, 15 ect) My caloric intake was DRAMATICALLY raised, to the level where I was consuming nearly 5,000 calories a day. And it took me nealry three months to gain just over 20 pounds. I am quite aware, that every one puts on weight at different weights, due to metabolism, body composition, genetics ect. But I have never heard of anyone gaining that dramatically or rapidly. The only situation I can imagine this feesible, is if she had induced some type of serious kidney problem, and/or edema due to her dramatic weight loss. In that case, perhaps the water weight retained form high sodium foods, could of had a significant impact on her gain. But I can not imagine anyone, who still has a realatively functional body gaining THAT rapidly, regardless ofa high caloire intake, follwing a dramatically low one. Ten pounds, sure I’d beleive that. Twenty…Just can not believe it.

  • Aubrey

    I think what most people forget to mention is that it’s the same for being slightly overweight, as long your frame can support it. Also the usage of BMI isn’t recommended for competitive athletes, probably including ballerinas. Personally, I’m a competitive speedskater (kind of weird, I know) and I’m advised by my doctor not to use it because it will probably give me an overweight reading although I have pretty average measurements 36-26-37.

    • BMI is bad for athletes because it identifies people with big muscle masses as being overweight (since to BMI muscle is weight just as much as fat is weight).

      So having a low BMI while doing heavy exercise is even MORE dangerous considering even LESS is occupied by fat.

      Which, btw, is ESSENTIAL for women. There are irreversible damages you can do to your fertility and hormones.

      Many a anorexics recover and realise they have provoked a hypothyroidism. Congrats, you will now have a super low metabolism forever.

      Never starve people, it’s never worth it.

      • Kimberly

        I agree with everything you’ve written in this thread. You know your stuff! Good for you!

      • mel

        I’ve been at both ends of this so I think I’m justified to talk about it. I’ve been almost “normal” weight for my height (5’6″ and 120) and also a very underweight weight for my height (5’5″ and 89). I can tell you that I did not experience more problems with intense athletics when I was lighter. I didn’t feel lightheaded, weak, etc. In fact, I had incredible stamina – I was able to run 6 miles in a row in under 45 minutes and play 8 hours of tennis a day. And no, I did not injure myself. I don’t think having a low BMI is unhealthy for athletics. I know for a fact that I’m definitely not damaging my fertility and hormones! I still grew during the time I was 89 pounds, so obviously my hormones weren’t affected. Finally, I am not anorexic and I do not have hypothyroidism. I get that most women aren’t like me, but don’t target people who have low BMIs either. We could be perfectly healthy and athletically capable (it isn’t any more “dangerous” for us to do sports), you just don’t know.

    • amazon

      i don’t know about ballerinas- my friend is a professional dancer and she has always been a very low weight. dancers ice, or ballet or any other kind don’t build muscle mass although they do have muscular frames. the idea is to create long lean lines. like marathon runners.that runner paula radcliffe (think thats her name!!) has a bmi of 18.
      things like rugby players on the other hand build mass.

  • Cleopatra

    To have gained 20 pounds in 5 days,is VERY unhealthy.Might have even been more unhealthy than to have lost 20 pounds in 5 months no matter how low the weight gets or how much the height is.

    Maybe Mila ate a lot of pizza lol..but I do not think Pizza alone would have done it yet.
    Do I sound like a jerk? lol just striking a joke here.She is a very beautiful girl though 🙂

  • Cleopatra

    I like her smile in the left picture.
    In the right picture,her cheeks are so chunkier.The same happened to me.I was 106/5’4..gained quite a lot of weight over a month.My cheeks got the same way.

  • kill me, but I prefer her skinnier

  • Cleopatra

    a lot of pizza :))

  • leilani

    Is it really possible for her to gain 20lbs in 5 days??! I’m 5’1 and 89lbs and I’ve been trying to gain weight pretty much since I hit puberty. I don’t binge and I sure as he’ll don’t starve. My doctor told me if I wanted to gain I need to do it in a healthy way. How did she gain so fast? I wish she went into more detail…

  • kate1st

    There is a pic of Mila and Natalie Portman in the daily mail where Mila looks several inches taller than Natalie, but they are both listed as 5ft3….very confusing.

  • Pingback: Mila Kunis Does Nylon Magazine | Skinny VS Curvy()

  • ty

    This is NOT a huge difference or THAt big of a deal..I know what shes really hungry for.. attention.

    • Alex

      20 pounds may not be a huge difference, but when you’re already slim and lose that much weight in a short amount of time, in an unhealthy way, you’re aloud to talk about it. As girls, I think we have the right to speak out about having a good body image every once in a while. And it’s not like we hear stuff like this from her all the time, so I don’t think it’s that she’s hungry for attention.

  • Pingback: Natalie Portman On Losing Weight for Her Ballerina Role: ‘The whole thing, I’m aware that it’s sick.” | Skinny VS Curvy()

  • siennagold

    I read over at justjared quoting Mila saying she’s usually 117 lbs. At her height of 5’3″, 117 lbs is a healthy weight.

  • Sims

    I think how she looks thin in the pictures looks good, but maybe in person she does look too skinny. I do believe in person she probably looks too thin and you can see her bones, but Hollywood is very unforgiving when it comes to weight. It’s very hard to define a woman as “too thin” in Hollywood because it’s become the norm to become too thin.

  • Selina

    I thought she was 5’2? Like 1 or 2 years ago they were interviewing her and she was talking about tht 70’s show and she said tht everyone was so tall and tht she only stood at 5’2… Did she like have a growth spurt? 5’4 isn’t really tht short (actually normal) but she said they wuld always make fun of her height on the show??

    • padme

      Well she got that job when she was 14 by lying about her age. It’s definitely possible she has grown a couple inches since then.

  • Selina

    This interview was like in 2008-2009???

  • annny

    Well i don’t know why everyone cares so much the point is, is that she gained all of her weight back. end of story, plus she is 5’3 not 5’4 so 95 pounds is not bad at all. I am 5’3 and I weigh 100.

  • kaye

    Mila’s always been tiny, even in that 70s show she was petite. And 5 months to lose 20 pounds is actually really good, she did it the healthy way. And in any case, Like Annny says, she gained all her weight back to be the original size she was. Thats what matters.

    But also, Annny; she said in HER WORDS (if you read it properly,) that shes 5’4”. And yeah, 95 pounds is bad for either size. You may just have that body structure for you to be 100 pounds, i know girls like that, and thats cool. But 95 pounds doesn’t look good on anyone unless they’re 4’10 and were born that way.

    Light exercise at being 95 pounds can kill you? She was 95 pounds and did a movie about being a ballerina. you know how much work that is? Its not light exercise

    Point is- shes back at her original size, and shes absolutely stunning.

  • Natacha

    im 11 , 95 ponds , 95 inches tall,
    i loook really fat
    how can i loose weigth
    go to my e-mail and tell me how

  • sammi

    I like her much more ‘curvy.’ She is beautiful either way, but I think that the skinnier version of her is a little bit more unflattering with her features. She did and does look gorgeous with in pictures and in Black Swan. It was a wonderful movie.

  • Wow, this article is good, my sister is analyzing such things, therefore I am going to tell her.

  • Pingback: MILA KUNIS NOW AND THEN PHOTOS - ellebuzz.com()

  • whadawhat?

    White women seem so obsessed with being underweight looking and I find it odd. Recently I saw several women from behind whom I didn’t realize were women until they turned around. They were literally built like 11-year-old boys thinking they were the cutest thing walking. Curves are feminine, bony is bony and obese is obese. How can you be womanly with absolutely no hips, butt, or boobs?

    • girl

      Women are not obsessed being “underweight looking” they are aspiring to be like beautiful thin models and celebs but some go overboard. Saying that girls who are thin are “build like 11-year old boys” is a direct jab at thin girls. Thin girls are considered attractive by society. Even though im really thin, most guys don’t even notice im underweight because I have an hourglass figure, round “bubble butt”(bf) and boobs. It is not realistic though, and I only gradually became this size without even noticing I was losing weight. I did restrict how much I ate but now that I am aware of it I am eating more healthy foods on purpose. No one wants to be fat, and obviously anorexic girls aren’t viewed as attractive looking. I guarantee you most guys prefer thin girls. Saying that girls who are thin are “bony” and look like “11 year old boys” is like saying a big girl is a fatass and ugly with a lot of fatrolls built like a hippo. You cant be womanly without a thin small waist,long lean legs and a butt without cellulite. That’s the thin girl insult equivalent to fat girls insulting thin girls.

  • girl

    Omg im the exact same height as her and at my lowest I was 96 pounds(months ago)and my heaviest I ever weighed was 118 like her right. What a coincidence. Atm im probably 101-103 pounds but I say im 105. I probably am sometimes. I get told I am so skinny by my family. But its true-it look does look good on pictures. I wasn’t even aware I was underweight for the longest time. I don’t overeat, and because I generally don’t eat a lot I don’t feel hungry unless I have to eat. Its actually hard to gain weight. Being at this current weight, 118 seems like a lot even though it is normal and not even close to overweight. And trust me, it does feel good when I know my cheekbones look chiseled and I have a thigh gap and flat stomach. The only noticeable thing is that my arms are very small and you don’t see much defined muscle on it. My goal Is to be on the 110 range. When you are this small at my height, you don’t have very much energy for sports such as hiking for hours. Its only good for wearing tight small clothes and doing normal daily non stressful activities. Unless you are a model, I don’t recommend trying to be this thin. When I was 118 I had defined muscle and looked normal. Now, the first thing you notice is my petite frame. I wear tight extra small t-shirts. It looks flattering because my waist is small and I have a booty still. Its not suitable for daily life, I am doing well because I don’t work. If I worked a 8-6 job I would be exhausted. I am easily weak. Please don’t aspire to be this thin, it is not all that. Aim to be healthy.

  • At

    I think she looked better on the left.

  • calm

    She looks more attractive and healthier in the picture on the left. In the picture on the right she’s chubby, and her face even looks puffy like when someone eats a lot of sodium and fast food.

  • Mark B

    Mentioning BMI is basic stupidity. For me, the acronym is Bullshit Medical Industry. A slight reworking of the outdated height/weight tables that no one could adhere to in the real world. And a new calculation promoted by one who always gets most things wrong – Dr. Oz. Let’s can this concept.