Record high oil prices, global warming, and an insatiable demand for energy: these issues define our generation. The film exposes shocking connections between the auto industry, the oil industry, and the government, while exploring alternative energies such as solar, wind, electricity, and non-food-based biofuels.

Director Josh Tickell takes us along for his 11 year journey around the world to find solutions to America's addiction to oil. A shrinking economy, a failing auto industry, rampant ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Fuel torrent reviews

Bambi J (ru) wrote: Really good! Perfect chick-flick sort of film. :)

Ed C (ru) wrote: One line summary: Finely crafted documentary of the legendary Canadian rock group Rush.------------------------ The film takes a three-pronged approach. First, there are interviews done in contemporary time, with the three principals of Rush, and well-known musicians who admire them, or were influenced by them. Second, there are interviews with family, handlers, and music industry associates. Third, there are many archival clips of live performances of Rush. Their growth from getting their first radio play in Cleveland to being well-known was quite engaging; the first hour slipped by quickly, going from nowhere to the album Moving Pictures. Then the issue of dealing with fame started to come in. Fan interaction rose strongly. Alex and Geddy were fine with that, but Neil was more of a private person and avoids interactions. The band's character and their fans' characteristics are compared in lots of detail. Neil was the principal lyricist, and his special talent seems to be reflecting his deep literacy in terms that just about anyone can understand. Further, their music tends to be complex, yet still accessible. In the eighties, the group switched producer and instruments toward synthesizers, electronic drumsets, and keyboards. They trended toward shorter songs with less complexity, less bass, and more keyboard. Some of their fans drifted away, many others did not. As one of their industry admirers put it, there were different periods of Rush, and that is one of the things that makes them interesting. Toward the end of the eighties, they switched producers again, and went back into being a 'power trio' again, but in the current context. Around 1997, Neil's daughter died in an accident, and his wife passed from illness not too long after. He embarked on a long trip on motorcycle (55k miles). The band shutdown while Neil healed. When Neil returned, there was a period of getting his chops back. They recorded a new album; they went on the road again. The band was rejuvenated, and traveled to places where they had ever been before, to large audiences. In the 21st century, some of their fans from the seventies celebrate them: the makers of South Park and Steven Colbert, for instance. Up to the time the documentary was made, the band was going strong. As Geddy said at one point, Rush is the world's most popular cult band.-----Scores----- Cinematography: 9/10 Nicely done. The archival footage clips look like the eras they came from, but the current interviews looks sharp and well-produced. Sound: 10/10 Seldom disappoints. I wish there had been more concert footage, but the exposition was too good to be omitted. Acting: z/10 Not really applicable here. Screenplay: 10/10 Well-organised, well-presented, and rich in the level of information that it presents.

Stephen B (ru) wrote: This film is a great testament to why film should be preserved. I wish it would have gone a bit deeper into the process of preservation of film. The National Film Registry is truly a gift to the nation and the world. As with most documentaries from America, it is highly patriotic and romanticizes American Film. It touches on a lot of fantastic films. In the last fifteen minutes of the film it becomes a doc about the power of film: the good and the bad. Which is brilliant, but seems to be a different doc altogether. Definitely a great watch, but a little slow.

Rameshwar I (es) wrote: It does live up to its billing of a tense high octane thriller at least initially but the lack of conviction to take sides even while dealing with a convinced protagonist hurts during many potentially flourishing moments. The movie slowly succumbs to a B-Movie feel in the second half though Cheadle gives a top performance. Samir (Don Cheadle) is affected by West's act of aggression when he was young. He builds his life systematically to avenge his loss. An FBI agent Roy (Guy Pearce) puts pieces together of certain international events and zeros in on Samir. How Samir evades him and tries to carry his mission with a moral dilemma holding him back comprises the rest. It boasts of an excellent screenplay initially carefully revealing pieces of a larger puzzle like any good thriller would. Unfortunately runs out of steam very soon making it a generic cat and mouse chase. Don Cheadle expectedly gives a humble yet powerful performance while Guy Pierce and his colleague resorts to a caricature of FBI agents what we have seen in many other flicks. Since a similar story is handled in so many ways in the recent times, it required something spectacular to standout but comes very short of what was required. Lacking these powerful moments makes the runtime longer than it already is. The moral dilemma and the perspective of West and East towards each other was portrayed promisingly at the start but gets repetitive and dragging at a certain point. It never had the potential to hit big, but couldn't restrain to a simple smart thriller either

blessing b (au) wrote: Hello!!! My name is joyfaith500 I am tall ,good looking, perfect body figure andsexy. I saw your profile and was delighted to contact you, I hope you will bethe true loving, honest and caring man that I have been looking 4, And I havesomething special to tell you about me, So please contact me directly through myjoyfaith500

Kyle B (ca) wrote: A charming comedy with nice performances from Helen Mirren and Julie Waters.

Ryan W (mx) wrote: When I was a young lad I would have given it a 5 star rating Hahaha. I still enjoy watching but yea, the writing is kind of lacking and not exactly laugh out loud funny throughout. There's still enough funny moments in the stupid ridiculous comedy to keep you watching. I don't think it deserves one star ratings as it's a film that is definitely not terrible consider Tom Green directed, wrote and starred in. Somewhat of an underrated film that I'm sure many people don't think about anymore.

Robby B (it) wrote: It's a dystopian society, crumbling under the weight of the planet's doom that no chlidren have been born for more than two decades. Then a miracle happens. With a pregnant girl, how do factions handle it? and the scene exiting the battle scarred building past the gob-smacked troops sends chills just thinking about it. CHILDREN OF MEN is an important movie to see.

CHARLIE (kr) wrote: Seven-year-old Albert was raised in a shiny world of sequins and show girls, surrounded by the fantasy of Las Vegas. But when his single mother is suddenly killed in a car accident, Albert is sent from Vegas to live with his mother's childhood best friend whom he never knew existed, Harriet Franklin, in the decidedly not fantastic city of Newark, New Jersey. As if raising a newfound "son" isn't trying enough for the fiercely independent Harriet, Albert has brought along a friend--an imaginary one that no one else can see--a stupendous, gentle giant of a Frenchman named Bogus. As Albert and Harriet struggle to get used to each other, Harriet's world of reality is brought face-to-face with Albert's world of imagination. Acting as part teacher, part playmate and part guardian angel, Bogus leads Albert--and eventually Harriet--through an enlightening experience of imagination and trust.

Kenny N (us) wrote: I'd call this the all-time worst adaptation of a Stephen King story, except unlike "Maximum Overdrive," King skipped publishing the story and committed it straight to film instead, with Mick Garris at the helm and a talented cast of actors to work with (including two exceptionally talented and gorgeous actresses, Alice Krige and Madchen Amick). But somehow the end product would make you believe that nobody involved in the film had a shred of talent, or that Stephen King was as bad an author as his detractors say he is.The story is about a unique breed of vampire known as the Sleepwalker. Two of them, a Mother and son, move to a new town, like they often do, after they feed off the lifeforce of a virgin. They share a supremely creepy incestual relationship (the movie has been called "sexy," but the only sex stuff going on is between Mom and Junior. If that gets you off...please stay the hell away from me.) Anyway, son, resembling the all-American boy, sets his site on a girl at his high school, but this little kitten is harder to catch than the others. (Cats! The only weakness of the sleepwalker!)Being a fan of King's work, I recognize his style underneath the surface: supernatural evils, innocence lost, something strange happening in suburbia, and the struggle of mankind to comprehend the inconceivable. The film tries to keep true to his spirit by adding humor to the horror, but it never works even once. The humor is so eye-rolling awful it kills what little tension there is. The film constantly wobbles back and forth between the two and succeeds less than 1/10th of the time. In the end, it's not so-bad-it's-good (like "Maximum Overdrive") it's so bad it's annoying. It turned a profit at the box office, but promptly, like a sleepwalker, vanished without a trace. It's better off staying lost.

SAM L (es) wrote: Peters Sellers & Ringo Starr are great in this movie. British humor set on high

Jason J (de) wrote: Chipmunk faced J Shisido plays the hitman Hanada and whilst I enjoyed his performance in My Colt Is My Passport, I certainly can't say the same about this movie as it's one big mess. It's not his fault though, it's just the movie is too weird and incomprehensible to make any kind of sense. Perhaps that's what the director Seijun Suzuki wanted - I don't know? I like to watch a movie that I can understand but this one is too confusing by far. Some parts of the movie are very stylish and look good. I can't fault the action scenes especially the final shootout either but the rest is nothing to write home about. A lot of people seem to praise this movie quite a bit but I'm afraid I'm not one of them. In fact I wouldn't watch this again. Give it a go if you want and if you understand what all the symbolism in the movie is all about give me a shout but otherwise don't bother.

Bob V (nl) wrote: The proverbial swan song of the gangster genre that dominated the box office during the 30's, but which after the new Production Code was pretty much doomed to disappear. This movie also set Bogart apart from his fellow gangster flick regulars at Warner's (they were dubbed Murderer's Row) and the story of how he got the part is legend in itself. In any case, this would be the last movie for which he did not receive top billing, with the Maltese Falcon only just around the corner, and Casablanca & To Have and Have Not amongst others looming in the years ahead.It's probable that the reason this movie still slipped in despite the newly enforced Code, is the much layered character of Earle who is yes, a murderer and a thief, but also a kind human being. The villain with a heart of gold is no news to us of course, but in this genre it was unusual to say the least. Add to that the magisterial performance by Bogart and a strong showing of the supporting cast (not to mention an adorable dog, in effect 'played' by Bogart's own pet) and you have a movie that transcends its own genre, and preludes the transformation of it into the Film Noir genre, which Bogart would go on to rule undisputed.

Nathan E (ru) wrote: Fred Astaire plays a horrible friend to Bing Crosby, who opens a Holiday Inn with the help of a lovely lady. When the lady is swept away to Hollywood by Fred, she'll have choose between love or fame and fortune.

FilmGrinder S (ru) wrote: "When you chase the dragon you get burned, oh man do you get burned."-Spike (Chad Lindberg)

DeMarkus H (fr) wrote: It's nice when older movies are actually good . 1967 and in color cool .

Syn Z (ag) wrote: to maintain a normal life need to sacrifice those things that other ppl won't know or understand well...a sad story, but also a movie about happiness and life.

Jason K (au) wrote: Legit done, Foster follows up the Beaver w another great acting storyline film.