GasHole (2010) Reviews

• America the complacent

  blank_twice-70-4084862011-06-02

  This movie is one of many important messages that I predict will go largely ignored. It is evident that Oil is largely in control of the world energy market, not just the United States, after the Oil companies posted record profits during the most recent global economic crises that was blamed on the housing and banking industries. So, we bailed out banks who we blamed the crises on and we bailed out the autos who work with oil companies to sell us vehicles that pollute our environment and cost us more to maintain, while 120 years of rumors, patents, companies, and mysterious mafia-like deaths happen all around inventors of cleaner and more sustainable transportation. We are constantly training and funding our enemies and paying for our problems to worsen. Why can a business proposition not be made to the American consumers that can demonstrate an ROI that would compel them to change their petroleum consumption? It seems like a concise and clear PERSONAL action plan is what is missing in all of this messaging. Show your neighbor how she can save $X over the next three years by making a personal investment in cleaner energy, and then the entire movement will "go viral" as the kids say. Don't even talk about any environmental benefits, but you can talk about "the terrorists" a little... everybody would love to hear that they would be taking from the top line revenue of the bad guys, I imagine (extra bonus if you noticed the economic terrorists in London, Houston, and Washington that were implied.) Now I'm very much against spoilers, but my comment on this movie must include one, so you've been doubly-warned: this movie attempts to address not only the egregious atrocities of the Oil industry, but tries to gently introduce the fact that we are the problem. You and I fail to act. We are comfortable consuming the pollutants that are taking away our financial means to feel empowerment and at liberty to participate, or certainly instigate, social change. How does the film do this? Well, the narrator almost says it a couple of times. What I can't stop laughing about is the rather lame attempt to rally up a feel good "we believe in the people... we're ready to change and the time is now" finale. It tried to end on an emotional note that was rather vacuous and felt to me as discrediting to a documentary that purports to be uncovering the facts about a clandestine injustice affecting everyone. They should know on a $500,000 budget that very few people are going to watch this movie that don't already know about the problem, or perhaps wouldn't care enough in the first place to already be looking for an answer on how to act. They give a few ideas (I'm not that much of a spoiler), but why the rah, rah, rah ending? Why not a step-by-step instruction plan with a promise to be driving by every day to check on you to make sure you are doing the right thing? Threaten the American public to do what you want. Seems like it worked for Big Oil. But seriously: this film (and writing this review) have given me some ideas on how to act and I'm looking forward to further research. Don't make the mistake in thinking Rockefeller is more responsible than Bush, just don't forget that you're the one buying their product and paying their salary.

  More

• Unsientific Conspiracy Theory Dross

  biker4512011-08-05

  First I have to say that I couldn't watch more than a half hour of this drivel before I decided to quit wasting my time and moved on to something productive. These "100 m.p.h. carburetors" have been tested over and over again by real scientists and they do not work. This is all wishful thinking. The S.A.E. (Society of Automotive Engineers) have tested them, car industry and enthusiast magazines have tested them, they've been tested by universities, and over and over again people have wasted their energy testing them; and one thing comes true every time. They do not work. And, there is no more oil company conspiracy than every day business practices, which can in themselves be evil, but not in this case. Water injection, in very minute amounts, has been proved to work to cool the charge but it has little bearing on mileage, only the efficiency to burn, almost unmeasurable, cleaner. But can you imagine having water injection in Duluth Minnesota where it gets to -50 f. in the winter? Give me a break. It is interesting that in talking about the "Buick that got over 100 miles per gallon" they show the patent briefly and a Compressed Natural Gas tank only for a moment without explanation. It appears that in this particular case the CNG is used in the process and that compressed air is also used. The problem with that is this "documentary" (term used lightly) does not take that into account in the claims of high mileage. Compressors to compress both the air and the CNG run on electricity, making tanks to hold them takes energy, the CNG itself is just another form of petroleum distillate and none of this seems to be taken into account in the claims. It is obvious that the producers of this movie went into the project with the sole intent of proving a conspiracy, rather than with an open mind, and nothing, even facts would not keep them from their goal. I watch a lot of documentaries and this has to be, without a doubt, the worst I've ever seen. Not only for its lack of science, but the filming, the choice of interview subjects, the editing... I can't think of one thing positive I can say about this movie. If you are a conspiracy theorist you may like or even love this movie. If you have any knowledge of science you will hate it, and if you are in the middle you may be duped into thinking this stuff might be true, which it is NOT. Stay far, far away from this movie.

  More

• Main thrust of the film is untrue

  energetic-698-4093952013-05-29

  The first half hour of the film is wasted on a persistent urban legend - that backyard inventors developed a 100-mile-per-gallon carburetor 50 years ago that was bought up and suppressed by the multinational oil companies. If such an invention really worked, the auto industry would have developed and commercialized it to increase the market appeal of their vehicles and reduce tailpipe pollution. There would have been no way the oil industry could have prevented it. Conclusion: the 100-mpg carburetor (installed on a heavy old clunker of a vehicle) is a hoax. More believable documentation than the reminiscences and speculations of some old tinkerers is absent from the film because such documentation - independent successful test results, substantive assessments by real experts on engine efficiency, etc. - does not exist. From that inauspicious beginning, the film goes on to prove that the oil industry is ruthless, profit-maximizing, and indifferent to the interests of consumers. All granted. The same is true of huge corporations in general. Belaboring the point is simply boring. The lengthy scenes of Congressional hearings were predictable, uninformative, irrelevant, and tedious. The worst fault of the film is that its main thrust is untrue: that solving America's oil addiction is mainly a matter of overcoming political opposition and will be relatively cheap and easy once we get the evil oil corporations under control. The film omitted the critical fact that for biofuels to replace fossil petroleum would require all of the arable land in the US and more. We would have to shift our agricultural economy entirely from food to fuel, and even that wouldn't come close to doing the job. Hydrogen was given a fleeting mention, but the film omitted the fact that producing H2 requires a large amount of energy. Germany did not use hydrogen in vehicles in WW2, as one non-expert spokesperson said in the film; it used liquid fuels synthesized from coal at great economic and environmental cost. It would have been easy for the filmmakers to check this fact and omit the hydrogen enthusiast's misstatement from the film, but they didn't bother to do so. There is a solid reason fossil petroleum has dominated our transportation economy for a century. It is cheap, energy-dense, transportable, and convenient. When it runs out, there will be massive economic dislocation and worsening international conflicts. Worldwide energy use will have to decline precipitously, and fanciful carburetors installed in SUVs will not comprise any part of the solution. Do not waste your time watching this film; "The End of Suburbia" is much more informative and scientifically well-documented.

  More

• Interesting, but poorly done

  prberg22011-08-11

  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"

  More

• Interest Sting

  upadhyaykapil2011-07-31

  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.

  More