Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Don't listen to the negative reviews

It is both painfully honest and laugh-out-loud funny at the same time.

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

Gasland effectively conveys how serious the threat to the environment is from fracking without confusing the viewer with complex statistics. The facts and figures it does contain are presented in ways that allow the viewer to fully digest what the implications are while also capturing the audience's attention as the facts associated with environmental risks of fracking would astonish any viewer. The visual aid that a documentary brings is also helpful in encouraging the audience to have a specific point of view. It allows the viewer to witness firsthand the environmental effects that fracking is having, such as water contamination, land destruction, alteration of the geological formations and aesthetically displeasing drilling pads. Visual evidence is extremely powerful at convincing the viewer of what is fact, Josh Fox uses this to his advantage by providing recordings, from numerous households, of tap water being lit on fire after a fracking drilling pad caused a contamination in the water source. The style that the documentary is made in (a road trip diary) lets the viewer become immersed in the story, as though they are travelling with Fox on this adventure through South America. It allows them to experience the interest, shock and devastation that Fox goes through in this documentary, connecting the audience to the issue of fracking on an emotional level. The interview aspect of the documentary portrays the personal experience of those affected by fracking and of those associated with the process, which builds confidence in the viewer that the information they are gaining is genuine.

This is a Michael Moore kind of documentary, that is, before he became rich and famous. There's all the down home kind of people being featured and they're fighting, in this case, Big Gas, which means ExxonMobil, Halliburton and various and sundry others. I really don't know enough about the situation to pass judgment on the central accusation of the film, namely that hydraulic fracturing causes long-lasting environmental damage and the poisoning of water supplies. The fact that film maker Josh Fox shows several homes with water that can be set afire at the kitchen sink tap is however a bit disconcerting to say the least.The problem seems to be that the methods used for fracturing employ a number of chemicals that are carcinogenic and, most significantly, there is no way to control the spread of those chemicals to areas around the wells including into the atmosphere. It's clear to me that there is not one executive at ExxonMobil or Halliburton that would want any hydraulic fracturing done anywhere near his home. Not in my backyard or across the street or even several football fields away is the how just about everybody feels about this technique for getting oil and gas economically out rock/shale formations.But there is a lot of money to be made and there is the argument that using such techniques can alleviate our dependence on foreign oil. The amount of natural gas and oil that can be fractured out of the rocks in the United States is enormous with some estimates claiming the supply is over a hundred years at current energy consumption levels. But Josh Fox's point is, at what cost? What personal and environment cost? What this film pinpoints is another example of how the economic interests of a few large corporations trump the lives of countless number of people and how the real environmental and human costs of production are dumped onto the public, especially the public that is our children and our grandchildren to come. The sad fact is that energy is relatively cheap today because the real cost of that energy is being given to coming generations to pay in a kind of Ponzi scheme. Since ExxonMobil, Halliburton, et al., have a shareholder horizon of the next quarter's earnings numbers, it is impossible for them and their execs to give a flying you-know-what about tomorrow's children or the world they will face. The future can take care of itself is the position that they are embracing. Meanwhile they personally are not polluted directly or inconvenienced or made cancerous since they live far, far away from the effects of hydraulic fracturing, and presumably with all the money they are making they can provide for their children and grandchildren to continue to live where they are (relatively) safe from the pollutants that are being expelled.But I have to say that this is not a great documentary. Its budget is obviously quite a bit short of what some other film makers can afford, yet Josh Fox makes his point very well and does a great public service in calling to our attention the dangers associated with hydraulic fracturing. I notice that there is a lot of advertising on television paid for by e.g., ExxonMobil that is trying to make this kind of natural gas and oil production as sweet as Tupelo honey with smiley faces and fields of flowers and greenery in the background. It's nice to see a counter to that, even if the film's budget is probably a fraction of the cost of one ExxonMobil commercial.It is gratifying to note that the positive reviews for this movie greatly outnumber the negative ones. It's clear that the industry's attack team has taken a pass on this one, hoping, I guess that it will go away from lack of interest. Take a look and see why this issue is not likely to go away; in fact I predict another more powerful film to come, which WILL be viciously attacked. Stay tuned.--Dennis Littrell, author of the movie review book, "Cut to the Chaise Lounge of I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!"

I worked on the Marcellus Shale and can honestly say that the documentary is incredibly accurate. It's too bad that he doesn't cover the incidents such as the truck drivers who died from errant sparks from flashlights looking into their tankers, or the frac tank that blew and killed a man in Armstrong County PA, or the "water treatment" facility that burned to the ground when drip gas (about 1%-3%) of the production water pulled from the pits ignited the storage tanks in New Castle PA around Sept of 08 or 09 that committed insurance fraud to get the plant rebuilt, or the plant that exploded in Youngstown several months later for the same reason. I just hope Gasland 2 covers the CMU report about the increased levels of brine from 34 municipalities NOT set up to treat the production water discharging directly into the Ohio River watershed that leads all the way to the Gulf, and when treated with chlorination, the chemicals turn into carcinogenic bromides. And the "Bio's" methanes which are freed up and sent to the surface from the drilling and fracking process and not necessarily from water well drilling. Funny how a well can produce fresh water for decades until the land is fractured, and all of the sudden its the water well's fault. I have a relative who is a lawyer for the industry and admits 3-4% of the concrete lined wells fail. It just takes one! You know, like BP Horizon was just ONE!

This film contains a lot of factual errors and omits as much as it includes. The least danger of hydraulic fracturing is cross-contamination of hydrocarbons into drinking water. Fracturing happens deep underground and there is over a kilometre of compressed rock barrier between that prevents any leaks. Wells are also inspected and monitored to make sure there are no leaks, as it is uneconomical for the oil or gas to escape. Watch Truthland to see the a rebuttal of some of the falsehoods in this movie. Most chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing are also used in the food industry and are not hazardous. All chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing are revealed on the website fracfocus. Josh Fox films and excellent piece of misleading propaganda.