Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: I know that the real story of Little Richard is a lot more thrilling than this maudlin and thoroughly average biopic. But then producer Little Richard was probably too reluctant to bring to light any sordid details of his life and just gave us a forgettable facsimile of his career highlights from the 50s and 60s.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: they have sex with melons in Asia.

okay. first, i doubted that, but after seeing the wayward cloud, i changed my mind and was finally convinced that they have sex with watermelons, with people dead or alive. no safe sex of course. the (terrifyingly ugly) leading man shoots it all into the lady's mouth after he did the dead lady. never heard of HIV? guess not.

the rest of this movie is mainly boring, but also incredibly revolting. as a matter of fact, in parts it got so disgusting i couldn't take my virgin eyes off. sex with dead people! how gross is that? and what's the message behind it all? we need water, we need melons, we need to be dead to have sex? sorry, but this stinks!

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: I loved this movie. It is a definite inspirational movie. It fills you with pride. This movie is worth the rental or worth buying. It should be in everyones home. Best movie I have seen in a long time. It will make you mad because everyone is so mean to Carl Brashear, but in the end it gets better. It is a story of romance, drama, action, and plenty of funny lines to keep you tuned in. I love a lot of the quotes. I use them all the time. They help keep me on task of what I want to do. It shows that anyone can achieve their dreams, all they have to do is work for it. It is a long movie, but every time I watch it, I never notice that it is as long as it is. I get so engrossed in it, that it goes so quick. I love this movie. I watch it whenever I can.

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer:
If you like Star Wars/Trek, come see where they got all their ideas and cinematic devices. It's my top 2 favorite movies of all times, other-worldly-futuristic and psycho-thriller. The intensity of the root material (Shakespeare's "The Tempest") is not overshadowed by whizbang gimmickry (a la later Lucas). And just because it was made in 1956, don't assume you can 'see the strings' holding the flying saucer up. This was the first movie where you COULDN'T. Miracle it was made at "A-movie" scale, economics and tastes at the time were stacked heavily against it. And director Wilcox's previous 'hit' was "Lassie Come Home". Until I looked him up, I assumed 'Fred Wilcox' was a pseudonym for a director who was already or later became famous, but at the time didn't want to be associated with sci-fi, which was strictly a "B" genre back then. This was either a very VERY visionary production, or a very fortuitous 'mistake' on the part of the folks who bankroll Hollywood.

There are the massive-scale mattes with live action almost microscopically inserted that Lucas used extensively. There are intelligent machines that transcend the stereotypical 'user interface'; "computers", as they've come to be portrayed much less futuristically in later works. Star Trek's 'transporter' is there, visually, almost unaltered by Roddenberry 10 years later. And if the Trek/Wars technobabble turns you off, FP's scientific references are not overdone and are all accurate, even today. The "ship" set is comprehensive, sparklingly realistic, as good as anything you've seen since, and more convincing than anything 'Trek' has done, for TV or film. We didn't get to spend as much time there as I would have liked.

If you ever wondered how movies got into space so competently, watching FP will explain all that. It's definitely not 'Wagontrain to the Stars'.