Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

Baseshment I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

David Jackson I am surprised more people here have not flatly called out this movie as nonsense. This movie repeats some pretty extreme allegations which are usually the currency of chain emails or conspiracy theory websites. Home auto enthusiasts have repeatedly created vapor carburetors that allow cars to get 100+ miles a gallon since the 1950s? Even if you don't discount that logically (auto companies - not oil companies - would make billions if not trillions from this) then before you commit to believing something so extreme you ought to do a little research. After 10 minutes of honest searching on reputable sites such as wikipedia or snopes, you'll find that, as you should already expect, these claims are lies.The brief history of the oil industry I did find informative and interesting. That's the only reason I'm giving this film two stars instead of one.

socialistpete The only good thing about this movie is that it draws attention to our energy crisis. While watching the movie I was enraged by the claims the film made about big oil companies hiding the fact that we could get hundreds of miles per gallon of gas. After it was over I did a little research on these claims. It is easy to find out that they are all untrue.Ogle debunked: I did not write the following but it wont let me post the link. "Is it really possible to get 100 miles per gallon? Absolutely; it just depends on what case you're evaluating. Did Tom Ogle achieve this on a 351 cubic inch Ford? How can it be proved, other than by skeptical claims that do not have concrete explanations? Considering we live on earth, the basic laws of physics are all we need to analyze and prove (or disprove) such a claim. These laws are essentially models of what occurs on our planet. For example, Force = Mass * Acceleration. This equation can be used to model how much force is required to accelerate a given mass. So, what are the laws concerning Ogle's scenario? Force = Mass * Acceleration is one of them - we're trying to accelerate a car to a certain speed for a certain time. Over the course of that time, friction is one of the resistive forces that impedes motion of the car. Gravity also impedes motion of the car. Without resistive forces, one could simply get the car up to a desired speed and it would continue at that speed until a resistive force acted on it. But as we all know, that doesn't happen on earth because there are numerous resistive forces. So we know there has to be a maximum mile per gallon amount that is achievable, since these resistive forces exist. Is 100 miles per gallon a plausible claim for a heavy Ford? To determine this, we need to know a few things: what kind of resistive forces is the vehicle trying to overcome while making its trip (the trip in which we are measuring its gas mileage), what kind of energy must the car exert to overcome these resistive forces, and how much gasoline is required to create that energy? For the first two parts of our analysis, the resistive forces the vehicle must overcome and the energy the car must exert should not be altered from any other vehicle. In other words, for our model to make sense in real world driving, the forces that resist Ogle's Ford and the energy that the Ford must exert to drive in regular road conditions are exactly the same for a Ford that does not have the Ogle system attached to it. Now, the energy part of the analysis is where Ogle made his supposed achievement. The energy equation is quite simple. Energy is composed of 3 parts (in simplified physics - that is, no nuclear power): Kinetic Energy, Potential Energy, and Internal Energy. Kinetic Energy is energy that results from a moving mass. Kinetic and potential energy are unimportant in this analysis and can be assumed to be zero. Internal energy is what is important in our analysis because it describes the amount of energy that a chemical reaction can produce (in our case, the reaction of burning gasoline). Gasoline has a specific amount of internal energy that is released when it is burned. There is a maximum achievable energy. For Olge's system to work, it must get more energy out of the gasoline than a normal car does. His system must come closer to the maximum achievable energy that exists in a specific amount of gasoline. The problem is that the maximum amount of energy in gasoline is not much higher than what an average car already achieves. Simply put, there is not enough 'extra' energy in the gasoline to be gained by burning it more completely, and there isn't enough unburned gasoline that goes through a car's engine to create a significant amount of extra energy. All modern car systems already have exhaust gas recirculation systems that recycle most of the exhaust fumes that still have small amounts of gasoline in them, and this is mainly for emissions reasons. Little gas mileage gains are seen in a properly maintained vehicle. To sum it up, Ogle did not design a device that made a Ford get excellent gas mileage while keeping the driving conditions the same. He would have either had to find ways to reduce the resistive forces (such as lowering the weight of the car) or he simply had an alternate fuel source hidden on his vehicle. Gasoline only has so much energy to give. Our cars already capture almost all of it. There aren't any significant gains to be made, regardless of how 'optimized' the system is. Significant losses don't occur from improper burning of gasoline, but rather from the resistive forces that exist in an engine and throughout a vehicle."

prberg2 This documentary brings up some interesting issues, and makes some good points, but seems to be poorly done. I agree with a lot of the ideas in the movie, but I wish they had more facts and show where they got their information. Also they don't mention other alternate forms of energy. The filmmakers focus too much on conspiracy theories and bio-diesel (which is still pretty dirty). I feel like they did not do enough research when they made this movie. The idea that we use too much gasoline is true. I also agree that there are great alternatives to old gasoline cars, but this movie just doesn't make a great case for those issues. I think they could have spent some more time supporting their issues and making the movie a higher quality.I had high hopes and I just feel disappointed. I liked "Who Killed the electric car better"

upadhyaykapil The documentary raises valid concerns. The presentation seemed inspired by a Michael Moore style, and certainly it does not live up to that: namely use of clips from other movies to convey a similar situation. Nevertheless, it brings about issues often missed in the debate over Peak Oil. The most interesting part was the history of Standard Oil, specifically the fact that the actual dissolution of the company brought them more profits! Also, one gets real sense of problems when one sees reactions from ordinary people. Watch if you ever had a concern for gasoline prices.