Movie Reviews (May 2026)

Project Hail Mary

Everybody seems to be gushing over this movie and falling in love with Rocky the alien. However, I didn't like it as much. I felt it was too long and tried too hard to pull at the heartstrings of the audience, like ET. The soundtrack was also overpowering and distracting. Space is supposed to be quiet. Personally, I like my aliens scary who are hell bent on killing every last human. I'm open to nice aliens, like in Micky 17, but this movie was too warm and cute, like a Hallmark commercial. Still, it wasn't terrible. I give it a 5 on the 0 to 10 scale.

The Devil Wears Prada 2

I loved the original movie and have seen it several times. I've been looking forward to the sequel for months. I was disappointed. Somehow it lacked the humor and magic of the original. It wasn't terrible but doubt I'll watch it a second time. I give it a 4 on the 0 to 10 scale.

Michael

I watched the first 20 minutes of Michael when I snuck in before seeing Project Hail Mary. I enjoyed that 20 minutes so much I returned the next day to finish it. Jaafar Jackson, the real life nephew of Michael Jackson, did an outstanding job. Other Jackson names were all over the credits. Ultimately, I judge movies by whether they told a good story, and Michael absolutely did and told it well. The only thing I might fault it for is it ended at an arbitrary point, late 80's, so I didn't have a sense of the story ending. However, it's well set up for a sequel.

I give it a 9 on the 0 to 10 scale.

Movie being revived from the dead, online: because of the Hanta virus panic:
The X-Files (June 1998) $2.99 on Amazon Prime
In a small Texas town, a mysterious black substance emanating from the remains of a prehistoric human engulfs a young boy and his rescuers. Later, FBI agents Fox Mulder (David Duchovny) and Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson) are in Dallas to disarm a bomb set to detonate inside a federal facility. Unfortunately the bomb explodes -- leaving four inside dead. Mulder and Scully then receive a tip that the disaster was a government effort to cover up an alien virus linked to the boy's death.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120902/

Mulder and Kurtzweil («The X-Files: Fight the Future»)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2o85p2lfRM

*********************************************
Tara Reid stars in a new movie called Dr. Q (for Dr. Quarantine) (2026, just released) - available for $4.99 on Amazon Prime
A mother loses her mind in early 2020 as COVID lockdowns take hold.
********************************************
Right at Your Door (2006) - When a dirty bomb is unleashed on Los Angeles, an everyman finds himself unable to contact his wife and begins a descent into paranoia.
Free on tubitv
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0458367/
********************************************
Lockdown: 2025 (2021) - On Amazon Prime
Virus outbreak leads to nationwide lockdown, martial law declared. A family confined at home faces an internal evil force threatening to destroy them while external dangers loom.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14096564/
*********************************************
Several years ago there were a couple YouTube channels that claimed there was a parallel Earth where nobody exists anymore. They would roam the streets of major cities and show there was absolutely nobody there. They'd break into stores and banks and arenas and police stations and nobody would be there. They must have had a people remover filter, but still, no car traffic but there were parked cars. It was set in the future, like in 2027 and these videos came out in 2020-21. Viewers could leave things at certain coordinates and the vlogger would pick it up to use in the next video, and the vlogger could leave things behind for other vloggers to pick up despite the time difference.
This movie seems to do a retake on that, with no people. The Last (2025) on tubitv
A man wakes up to discover every living thing in the world has disappeared. As he seeks to find answers, a dark element surrounds him and slowly tries to corrupt him.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt36041986/
****************************************************

Quote: Wizard

Project Hail Mary

Everybody seems to be gushing over this movie and falling in love with Rocky the alien. However, I didn't like it as much. I felt it was too long and tried too hard to pull at the heartstrings of the audience, like ET. The soundtrack was also overpowering and distracting. Space is supposed to be quiet. Personally, I like my aliens scary who are hell bent on killing every last human. I'm open to nice aliens, like in Micky 17, but this movie was too warm and cute, like a Hallmark commercial. Still, it wasn't terrible. I give it a 5 on the 0 to 10 scale.

link to original post

I liked it up until most of the main mysteries were revealed. And after that the rest of it felt too long.

Quote: rxwine

I liked it up until most of the main mysteries were revealed. And after that the rest of it felt too long.
link to original post

I agree 100%.

I only see about one new movie every three years or so but I am looking forward to this one.

Quote: Wizard

Project Hail Mary

Everybody seems to be gushing over this movie and falling in love with Rocky the alien. However, I didn't like it as much. I felt it was too long and tried too hard to pull at the heartstrings of the audience, like ET.

When I saw ET in the theater in the very early 80s I walked out halfway through trying not to puke. That movie was so sugary and stupid I was physically sick. It was basically two and a half hours of watching a puppet.

I really enjoyed Project Hail Mary, especially the big-screen theater experience.

One of the reasons was because I hadn't seen trailers for it and didn't know anything aside from it being in space. It was reminiscent of my first time seeing 2001: A Space Odyssey—also in a theater.

Not knowing what to expect in a movie hits differently. After I saw the trailer, I knew that I wouldn't have felt the same kind of suspense and tension about the alien. Knowing how it looked, and its antics, would have ruined the wonder and discovery.

It was indeed a bit long, but I didn't mind because the opening seemed to hint that it would be an epic-style movie, and I had the expectation it would be more than 2 hours. I liked how it cut back and forth between the present and the setup to the mission, and the two timelines converged, similar to Memento.

Did anyone recognize the actress who played the female Russian astronaut?

For The Devil Wears Prada 2, I enjoyed it. I liked the story and style, though it had lazy fan service callbacks to the original. I liked all the characters again, though I thought Emily Blunt's character got elevated unrealistically to give her an important role in the movie.

Fight the Future has always stood out to me because it blends a genuine public-health fear with the series’ usual conspiracy and extraterrestrial themes. Watching it again now, the parallels are more noticeable, although the movie obviously takes plenty of creative liberties with how a virus would actually behave.

Quote: smoothgrh

Did anyone recognize the actress who played the female Russian astronaut?
link to original post

Yes! Milana Vayntrub

Coyote vs Acme comes out on Friday. I am looking forward to see how bad it is.

I just watched the trailer. It's not what I was expecting. I think a pretty good rule of thumb is that anything starring John Cena is streaming fodder.

Quote: DRich

Coyote vs Acme comes out on Friday. I am looking forward to see how bad it is.
link to original post

Be prepared to be disappointed. Every reviewer is giving the movie high praise. People are openly wondering and slightly angry at WB for initially shelving it for the tax write-off.

I just saw The History of Concrete. Here is the trailer.


Direct: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O05arcJjOd0.

I confess that I love a movie about people who blindly follow some business dream, in particular a movie concept, no matter how bad it is. In that light, two of my favorite movies are The Disaster Artist* and Ed Wood. An interesting thing is that all three movies mentioned so far that a movie can be so bad that audiences will still see the love and effort that went into it and be able to connect with it. At least that is my takeaway.

The History of Concrete is more about the struggle to make the movie than concrete itself. It does go way off on tangents but in them you see real people. Everybody in this movie plays themselves. I tend to think they let their guard down because they figured a movie about concrete would never see the light of day anyway.

I do wonder if the maker saw the way the movie would come out all along. Or maybe he never found any funding and threw together what footage he already had as best he could.

My favorite scene was the business that removed chewing gum stains. I worked at Disneyland as a sweeper in 1985. We hated chewing gum passionately, more than vomit spills or dumped popcorn in the bushes, and went to great pains to remove the gum and any residue.

It is not for everybody. Watch the trailer and decide for yourself. If you did see it -- what did you think?

* corrected

Here are titles of reviews of The History of Concrete by random people on IMDB

Hilarious
Amazing
A Work of Quirky Genius
Great for a while, but not for 101 minutes
Crumbling Concrete
Pointless Boredom
To be honest, not worth the price of admission
A movie about nothing
Incoherent drivvle (sp.)
Artsy Flop
Michael Moore Deja Vu
Cement Story
The trailer is the best part

Quote: Wizard

My favorite scene was the business that removed chewing gum stains. I worked at Disneyland as a sweeper in 1985. We hated chewing gum passionately, more than vomit spills or dumped popcorn in the bushes, and went to great pains to remove the gum and any residue.

It is not for everybody. Watch the trailer and decide for yourself. If you did see it -- what did you think?
link to original post

In England the public chews so much gum that it clogs up the sidewalks in London and they have crews hired by the government and all they do all day long is use power washers to get up all the old gum. I've always considered gum chewing a nasty habit that I've never gotten into I don't get the point of it.

Quote: Wizard

two of my favorite movies are The Room (not to be confused with just Room) and Ed Wood. An interesting thing is that all three movies mentioned so far that a movie can be so bad that audiences will still see the love and effort that went into it and be able to connect with it. At least that is my takeaway.
link to original post

Haven't seen the History of Concrete (2026) or The Room.

By, The Room do you mean the 2003 movie? Its IMDb rating is 3.6 Sounds awful.

But Ed Wood (1994) is one of best movies of the 1990s. (And incidentally, IMDb 7.8) It's a movie I don't mind watching occasionally, as in more than twice. Why are you lumping it in with "a movie can be so bad that audiences will still see the love and effort that went into it and be able to connect with it"?

Or were you somehow confusing it with Plan 9 From Outer Space (1957) which is painfully bad (and IMDb 3.9).

History of Concrete (2026) has an IMDb of 7.4 so I may just watch it. In general, unless I like the genre, I won't watch a movie rated under 7. (For example, Black Mass (2015) got just a 6.9 but I like the genre, so I watched it, but it's not really a movie I'd watch more than say, twice, and I am not in any hurry to watch it for the second time actually.)

IMDb rarely gets it wrong. For example Gladiator (2000), IMDb 8.5 Love it! have watched it many times. Gladiator (2024), IMDb 6.4 - struggled through it once, almost assuredly will not watch it again.

Recent rating I didn't necessarily agree with was giving 8.0 to Blade Runner 2049 (2017). It dragged some, and didn't live up to especially The Final Cut (2007) of Blade Runner (1982) which was IMDb 8.1 (8.2 actually for The Final Cut (2007)) and worth watching repeatedly.

Quote: MDawg

By, The Room do you mean the 2003 movie? Its IMDb rating is 3.6 Sounds awful.

Ooops. I did mean The Disaster Artist, which was about the making of the movie The Room.

Quote:

IMDb rarely gets it wrong.
link to original post

I will consider an IMDB rating in whether to see a borderline movie. However, I often strongly disagree with the consensus there. An example is Inception, which has a rating of 8.8 and their 13th highest rated of all time. I never cared for it. I would take The History of Concrete over Inception in a second. Meanwhile, Rounders got only a 7.3.

My primary use of IMDB is to try to figure out what else I recognize an actor from.

I recognize that many movies are not to my personal taste, so I am conscious of the difference between "I like this movie", "This is generally regarded as a good movie", and "This is a commercially successful movie". Many of the movie ratings address one of the latter questions, which sadly has little correlation to the one that I find meaningful.

Quote: Wizard

Quote: MDawg

By, The Room do you mean the 2003 movie? Its IMDb rating is 3.6 Sounds awful.

Ooops. I did mean The Disaster Artist, which was about the making of the movie The Room.

Quote:

IMDb rarely gets it wrong.
link to original post

I will consider an IMDB rating in whether to see a borderline movie. However, I often strongly disagree with the consensus there. An example is Inception, which has a rating of 8.8 and their 13th highest rated of all time. I never cared for it. I would take The History of Concrete over Inception in a second. Meanwhile, Rounders got only a 7.3.
link to original post

When I use IMDB I only look at negative reviews. If there is a large percentage of them compared to the other reviews or if people are really vehement in their dislike I take that as a clue that this is a pretty bad movie. I can't remember the last time I read any positive reviews because they're just meaningless to me, people like the stupidest movies.

Quote: Wizard

Quote: MDawg

By, The Room do you mean the 2003 movie? Its IMDb rating is 3.6 Sounds awful.

Ooops. I did mean The Disaster Artist, which was about the making of the movie The Room.

Quote:

IMDb rarely gets it wrong.
link to original post

I will consider an IMDB rating in whether to see a borderline movie. However, I often strongly disagree with the consensus there. An example is Inception, which has a rating of 8.8 and their 13th highest rated of all time. I never cared for it. I would take The History of Concrete over Inception in a second. Meanwhile, Rounders got only a 7.3.
link to original post

I thought Inception was a brilliant movie. Rounders was okay, it was well done but I wouldn't seek it out to watch it again because it wasn't 'fun'. Movies about people destroying themselves don't appeal to me. I also wouldn't watch Casino a second time, it was more a mob movie then a gambling movie and I don't tend to like mob movies. And 21 I actively disliked; it was so unrealistic and inauthentic, I would not waste my time on it.

However, movies about mountain climbing I usually enjoy. I'm just bent that way.

Quote: MDawg

In general, unless I like the genre, I won't watch a movie rated under 7.
link to original post

Quote: gordonm888

However, movies about mountain climbing I usually enjoy. I'm just bent that way.
link to original post

There's no conflict there.

Such as, 127 Hours (2010), which is actually IMDb rating 7.5 ? I liked that movie.

Quote: Wizard

Meanwhile, Rounders got only a 7.3.
link to original post

7.3 is not a bad rating at all.

Inception is probably a good movie just the premise seemed so silly I didn't want to watch it. In general I draw a hard line against fantasy type movies like most Marvel comics (I consider them fantasy anyway), Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, etc. (Science fiction on the other hand, I like.) I probably will watch Inception one of these days because it isn't actually a fantasy genre movie.

I'm not so much into horror movies, with some exceptions.

Quote: MDawg

IMDb rarely gets it wrong.
link to original post

I stand by this. But to clarify I didn't mean that IMDb always gets the relative rankings of movies entirely right, but that movies that rate under 7 are universally flawed and not as good as movies that rate 7 or higher.

For example, Lucy (2014), IMDb 6.4 I watched, but parts of it just were silly and not so well done.

If you compare to

TV Guide’s old 4-check Rating Scale:

• 4 checks: A Classic
• 3 checks: First Rate
• 2 checks: Flawed, may have moments
• 1 check: Desperation time ,

I'd say that IMDb 7 comes in around 3 checks, and much below that 7, is Flawed.

For me, I rank a movie a 7 when it is a good watchable movie, and an 8 if it was something special. Films that floor me are a 9. A 10 is rare and used only for movies that I absolutely loved and are technically brilliant in some way.

A 6 is a movie I would watch again if I am bored. A 5 is a clunker or a stupid film that I would not watch again.

A 3 and 4 are usually awful movies with decent production values.

1 and 2 are for the stinkers of all times. I ranked both Manos, Hands of Death and Plan 9 from Outer Space as a 1.

I do enjoy Marvel Comics movies and fantasies. Just personal taste, based on my youth reading comic books as well as The Hobbit and LOTR. We're all different.

Quote: gordonm888

For me, I rank a movie a 7 when it is a good watchable movie, and an 8 if it was something special. Films that floor me are a 9. A 10 is rare and used only for movies that I absolutely loved and are technically brilliant in some way.

A 6 is a movie I would watch again if I am bored. A 5 is a clunker or a stupid film that I would not watch again.

A 3 and 4 are usually awful movies with decent production values.

1 and 2 are for the stinkers of all times. I ranked both Manos, Hands of Death and Plan 9 from Outer Space as a 1.

I do enjoy Marvel Comics movies and fantasies. Just personal taste, based on my youth reading comic books as well as The Hobbit and LOTR. We're all different.
link to original post

I'm very tolerant of movies. All I need to call it "a good movie" is something in it that keeps me engaged (easy to do) and does not offend my sensibilities (extraordinarily difficult to do). It can be a good story, have good acting or dialogue, good special effects or cinematography, just good anything, and I'm going to see it as good.

Take Star Trek vs. Star Wars. The original Star Trek was a cheap production, kind of random casting, not known for great acting or effects, but excellent stories and that's what made it a great show. Star Wars- not much of a story, predictable and done-to-death, but excellent action and effects to keep me engaged. So both get the "good" rating.

"Spanking The Monkey" is the only movie so morally repugnant and devoid of any redeeming qualities that I walked out of the cinema. I was living in Connecticut and it was set in Connecticut and filmed only a few miles from the art cinema in which I saw it, a few of the art cinemas were screening it and I thought it would have some decent local culture, billed as a "dark, erotic comedy." The premise was so offensive I don't even want to type the words for it. I foolishly brought a date, who kept exclaiming "Jesus Christ," and not in prayer, at every brilliant plot twist. Hard to believe anyone liked it, as it was not erotic unless you are a sex offender, not funny unless you are a sadist, and dark only in the grievous sense of a melanoma.

"21" I did like, as I had been AP long enough that I expected it could not be realistic and still be a watchable movie. It hit upon a few interesting things, and I think it did a good job of matching public perception of what organized card counting is like (which of course is something we can never know once we have done it for real) which is the best you can hope for in a movie for the general public. Like a cop movie vs. a day in the life of a real cop. He does paperwork, makes a report at a minor car accident, arrests a homeless guy for screaming at someone, goes to court and "lacks candor," goes to a domestic at the welfare motel, more paperwork, and goes home. Not much of a movie.

21 (2008) is a perfect example of IMDb getting it right. Rating: 6.8 It was flawed, but had good moments.

Versus Casino (1995) that was rated 8.2 which is commensurate with its brilliance and consistency. Almost every scene is a movie making masterpiece, almost as good as Goodfellas (1990).

Another example would be The Gambler (1971) that was every bit a 7.1 , while its remake in 2014, was comparatively dismal and came in with a well deserved flat 6 rating.

In my opinion, 21 was a terrible movie. Offhand, I can't think of a worse gambling movie.

One wish of mine that obviously will never come true is that they would make a film of 'The Gambler' that is based on the Dostoevsky book. Instead the screenwriter wrote about his own addicted-to-gambling life, I think. That didn't mean it was a bad movie, but it wasn't Dostoevsky and at the time it was promoted as based on his work , as I remember

One of the things that's too bad is that some of the really good humorous bits got left out... and nothing in the basic story wouldn't make a good movie either

As far as the 2014 movie, John Goodman stole the show ... the scene is not in the 70s version

Language in below is not safe for work

I asked the google bot about the screenwriter James Toback

"He developed a massive gambling habit during his youth and his time at Harvard, frequently running up enormous debts with bookmakers.
• The Inspiration for The Gambler: Toback used his real-life struggles with sports betting and casino games as the direct inspiration for his breakout screenplay, The Gambler (1974). The main character, Axel Freed (played by James Caan), is a New York City English professor with a self-destructive gambling addiction—mirroring Toback’s exact life and job at the time.
• The $100,000 Debt: Toback famously recounted that the plot of the movie was based on a real-life crisis where he racked up $100,000 in gambling debts (equivalent to over $600,000 today) and had to scramble to find a way to pay off dangerous bookies."

Quote: Wizard

In my opinion, 21 was a terrible movie. Offhand, I can't think of a worse gambling movie.
link to original post

The Last Casino was much better, in my opinion. Heck, Bookies was better than 21, and that's as someone who isn't into sports. 21 did have a good soundtrack.

I've said I don't tend to like mob movies and wouldn't watch Casino a second time. Someone replies that he thought Casino was as good as Goodfellas. Well, I thought that Goodfellas was a very well made film but I didn't enjoy it much either and I wouldn't watch Goodfellas a second time.

I personally don't enjoy Robert DeNiro as an actor. I realize many people do.

I loved The Silence of the Lambs and The Exorcist. My wife hated Silence of the Lambs and refuses to watch The Exorcist.

People are different and are allowed to have different opinions about what they enjoy.

Quote: gordonm888

I've said I don't tend to like mob movies and wouldn't watch Casino a second time. Someone replies that he thought Casino was as good as Goodfellas. Well, I thought that Goodfellas was a very well made film but I didn't enjoy it much either and I wouldn't watch Goodfellas a second time.

I personally don't enjoy Robert DeNiro as an actor. I realize many people do.

I loved The Silence of the Lambs and The Exorcist. My wife hated Silence of the Lambs and refuses to watch The Exorcist.

People are different and are allowed to have different opinions about what they enjoy.
link to original post

I would guess there is less than five movies that I have watched more than once.

IMDB may reliably show the consensus of the crowd but sometimes the score just shows that the crowd has no taste.

Case in point: Last of the Mohicans, which scored a 7.8, is at the top of my “what were those greedy Hollywood assholes thinking” list. They started with a well-crafted classic, kept the title, setting, and character names, and then changed everything else. The result was a simplistic and predictable story that lazy English teachers have shown in their classroom to their even lazier and near-illiterate students.

But that’s just my opinion and who am I to argue with the wisdom of the crowd?

Quote: TumblingBones

IMDB may reliably show the consensus of the crowd but sometimes the score just shows that the crowd has no taste.

link to original post

That's exactly what I said. This is what I do, I look at the total number of reviews a movie gets or a TV series or whatever, and then I look at the negative comments, the one and two star comments, And if a large number of negative comments make up the total I assume that is a piece of crap. About 98% of the time I'm correct. People tend to leave much more quality negative comments then they do positive comments. Also a lot of people could not tell a bad product from a good product they have absolutely no taste so their comments are meaningless.

Here's an example. If there are 750 total comments and in the one and two star category 175 of them are negative the movies are going to suck more than likely. If there are 750 total comments and less than 50 are negative there's a chance it's probably pretty good. There are exceptions, I will watch anything that has Johnny Depp in it or Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise and a bunch of others. I can't think of a single female actor I feel that way about because women are much more unreliable for good product than men are. Movies that feature women are usually boring and predictable and silly.

Quote: TumblingBones

IMDB may reliably show the consensus of the crowd but sometimes the score just shows that the crowd has no taste.

Case in point: Last of the Mohicans, which scored a 7.8, is at the top of my “what were those greedy Hollywood assholes thinking” list. They started with a well-crafted classic, kept the title, setting, and character names, and then changed everything else. The result was a simplistic and predictable story that lazy English teachers have shown in their classroom to their even lazier and near-illiterate students.

But that’s just my opinion and who am I to argue with the wisdom of the crowd?
link to original post

The scenery made up for the film's many faults, imo.

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: TumblingBones

IMDB may reliably show the consensus of the crowd but sometimes the score just shows that the crowd has no taste.

link to original post

That's exactly what I said. This is what I do, I look at the total number of reviews a movie gets or a TV series or whatever, and then I look at the negative comments, the one and two star comments, And if a large number of negative comments make up the total I assume that is a piece of crap. About 98% of the time I'm correct. People tend to leave much more quality negative comments then they do positive comments. Also a lot of people could not tell a bad product from a good product they have absolutely no taste so their comments are meaningless.

Here's an example. If there are 750 total comments and in the one and two star category 175 of them are negative the movies are going to suck more than likely. If there are 750 total comments and less than 50 are negative there's a chance it's probably pretty good. There are exceptions, I will watch anything that has Johnny Depp in it or Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise and a bunch of others. I can't think of a single female actor I feel that way about because women are much more unreliable for good product than men are. Movies that feature women are usually boring and predictable and silly.
link to original post

Sometimes a one-star review is the best thing that could ever happen to a product. Here's the classic positive one-star, of the movie Jaws:

Quote:

It was like Moby Dick, but a movie. Who would want to see that?

So he's criticizing the movie by comparing it to what many would say is the best novel ever written. And because many people do as you do, go to the bad reviews first, it will get read more frequently and leave people curious and doing a double-take.

But I don't pay attention to movie reviews. I have no values or preferences in common with the typical movie critic and not much in common with most viewers either. If I like it I like it.

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

But I don't pay attention to movie reviews. I have no values or preferences in common with the typical movie critic and not much in common with most viewers either. If I like it I like it.
link to original post

I'm the same way but most of the time I don't want to bother wasting my time to see if it's a good movie so I check it out first.

Quote: odiousgambit

One wish of mine that obviously will never come true is that they would make a film of 'The Gambler' that is based on the Dostoevsky book.
link to original post

I never assumed The Gambler (1974) was supposed to be based on the book, but it did have a scene that includes a discussion of Dostoevsky.



I've seen the 1949 The Great Sinner, that is loosely based on Dostoevsky's novella, blended with some other works.



There are some foreign movies that are also loosely based on D's The Gambler, but the 1972 Soviet-Czechoslovakian film The Gambler (Igrok) directed by Alexei Batalov, is supposed to be very close (I have not seen it).

I am pretty sure I have seen "the Great Sinner", or some of it, which I must have realized had Dostoevsky's book's influence. A pretty forgettable film.

The genre though, including the idea of someone winning big at gambling and then getting hooked on it.

And twenty-six year old Ava Gardner wasn't forgettable at all!

Quote: MDawg

The genre though, including the idea of someone winning big at gambling and then getting hooked on it.

And twenty-six year old Ava Gardner wasn't forgettable at all!


link to original post

Frank Sinatra didn't think so. He married Ava Gardner in 1951 at the lowest point in his career and at the height of her career. She was the love of his life, but they didn't get along. They separated two years later.

Quote: MDawg

The genre though, including the idea of someone winning big at gambling and then getting hooked on it.

And twenty-six year old Ava Gardner wasn't forgettable at all!


link to original post

She was great in Showboat 1951.

She hailed from the deep south but was against racism. When the premiere of ShowBoat was in (I think Mississippi) the theater forced the black performers to sit in the black section. In solidarity, she stood up and sat with them in the black section.