Cubussoli Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Unlimitedia Sick Product of a Sick System

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.

Kayden This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

makoxl I've watched hundreds of documentaries and this has to be the most blatant example of an attack-docu. Let's be honest about the topic, 99.9999% of people don't know anything about this but it seems that a lot of people in this movie and it's counterpart are able to speak on the topic in great depth. Bringing Russia into this documentary as a main topic is pretty weak in general, almost desperate!This movie is so bad it's worth watching. I don't give a frack about either side of the debate but this movie makes me want to be anti- fracking. Frack this piece of fracking ****.

Tcarts76 Why does this currently only have a 5.9 star rating on IMDb. I guess stupid is forever, even in the faces of so-called "facts" being obliterated, people will not accept fracking is not destroying the environment.This whole thing is a result of the digital age of stupidity. Nobody ever finds the need to fact check anymore. There are so many sources for info today so if someone doesn't want to accept facts they just go out and find a source that will just give them facts they want to hear.This is a great little documentary film unlike the fake documentaries that are so persistent today. An interesting subject that wasn't taken very far popped up which should lead to a bigger discussion. It's the Russian influence in the anti-fracking industry/special interest group.Is "Climate change" real? I believe it is, but grossly exaggerated as the climate always changes. The big push is an EU creation. Here's how. The "Climate Change," or global warning back then, took center stage at an interesting time. The Berlin Wall had fallen and the Soviet Union was economically defeated. Soon the EU formed. Why? The EU was formed for economic viability, namely, to compete with the U.S.. There was 2 problems the EU had in order to compete. 1, the need for economic aid to combat the USSR was over and this could effect gas prices. 2nd, Europe's oil supply was still controlled by the Russians. This led to a hard truth. No matter how hard the EU tried, Oil prices would hold them back. The U.S. has it's own oil, and Canada to the north is another source for the US. We also refine a lot of the worlds oil. Fuel is cheaper in the U.S..This lead to the carbon credit, and climate change schemes that not only cost a lot of money, but make no sense because proposals have little to no impact. They do make sense though when you realize that the scheme involves massive U.S. spending, and basically the U.S. doling out tons of dollars to destroy their own economy, while the EU kicks back, and becomes an economic leader because they engineered the whole scam. This documentary on fracking is worth watching and deserves much better than the ridiculous activist's that are suppressing it, will lead you too believe.

acerbus_8 It quickly becomes pretty clear that this "documentary" is a personal attack on a documentary called Gasland and it's director. Had the "doc" been much better in it's execution and less eager to subvert just one man and his work. Then it could actually have delivered something that could've sparked a debate.The theme is therefor less about researching fracking, and more about trying to discredit Gasland.A lot of effort is poured into maintaining that the film was funded on Kickstarter. Actually so much effort go into iterating this, that it begins to become suspect. On top of this, researching superficially on the director "Phelim McAleer" quickly tells the story of a "documentarian" who has worked to support big business.As for FrackNation as a whole it is a disjointed piece of work that, in its quest to connect human emotion with fracking, keep losing focus throughout. From obviously staged "demonstrations" in Dimock & ridiculous confrontations. To the involuntarily humorous, with it's attacks on renewable energy: "Wind turbines are massive, 24/7, ruthless, bird killing machines" and scenes where fracking becomes the great savior of farms (even though fracking has nothing to do with farming) around the country, purporting that should a farm dissipate it would automatically be replaced by residential buildings which would contribute massive amounts of pollution through traffic and well-digging.We also have an interview with a biochemist called Bruce Ames on the chemicals used in the fracking process. But instead of explaining the chemicals, the issue is sidestepped and the conclusion just becomes "Scare stories sell newspapers", again taking jabs at Gasland.It all closes with a corny propagandistic ad for energy, that feels completely disjointed from the rest of the movie. And a monologue that concludes, without any real data, that fracking is completely without problems.In conclusion. The documentary merits of this film are severely lacking and even though the film-maker behind, goes to great lengths to talk up the "documentary's" independence from the energy industry. You're left with the distinct feeling that even though the film was financed through Kickstarter, the backers are the energy industry who've just made the contributions look like they were donated by a lot of different people.Now I have to see Gasland. Hopefully that will be much better than this dribble.

William Warby FrackNation sets out to discredit the claims made in the feature length documentary film Gasland and does so quite effectively, using mostly the same journalistic techniques as Gasland itself: cherry picking evidence, cynical editing of interviews and conversations to show detractors in a negative light, misdirection etc. For example, there's a particularly irrelevant sequence in which a poor Polish grandmother speaks about the hardship she faces in paying her energy bills. It has nothing to do with objective debate about fracking whatsoever, but cynically manipulates the viewer's emotional response to the film's message (Gasland uses the same trick with sob stories of lost property values and health woes, unsubstantiated by evidence). It's curious that the majority of popular feature length documentaries follow the same basic formula: a highly persuasive attack on some phenomena or other drenched in enough ideological bias to make the editors at Fox News blush.As is fairly typical for documentary films on such emotive subjects, people who agree with the filmmaker's point of view rate it highly and rave about the film's objectivity while those who are predisposed against that point of view disparage it as industry propaganda and attack the credibility of the filmmakers. If like me to start with no pre-formed opinions on the subject of Fracking, you may find yourself very much persuaded by watching either Gasland or FrackNation, but even if you watch both, you will not have received much in the way of balanced and objective information on the subject. To get that, you need to check other, less biased sources of information. I read articles on the subject from Wikipedia, New Scientist, the United States Geological Survey and a variety of news organisations and watched both movies, and the opinion I formed was as follows: the jury is still out. There isn't very much reliable evidence that fracking causes water contamination, earthquakes or any of the other things it is blamed for, but it does appear to also be true that there are some regulatory shortcomings and independent research doesn't seem to have caught up with the pace of development in the industry. In other words, fracking is probably a good thing but we need to do more to prove that scientifically.I rated FrackNation 6/10 based on the fact that it made me think about the issues it raised and helped me to form an opinion on it's chosen subject, but in a way that was incomplete and in some ways unhelpful. It was fairly interesting to watch, but I strongly encourage anyone interested in this subject to consult sources of differing viewpoints.