MOVIE
BASICS
Bruce Gast - ElectricCars.com
What I liked about this movie is that the facts
were provided and the viewer was given the freedom to form their
own conclusions... Events that lead to the demise of the EV-1
project are presented, with no blanket statements, not time
wasted on passing blame... Many environmental issue
documentaries are presented in a way that is too "angry" and
chocked full of people speaking their opinions. This movie was
very well done and my congratulations to Sony Pictures!
The first thing that shocked me was the lack
of people in the audience... There were 11 people, besides my
Wife and I. We watched this on a nice August afternooon in downtown
Reno. Ironically, this was the week of the "Hot Auguest Nights"
car rally... when 750,000 people swarmed into Reno to show off
their vintage "gas guzzlers". (OK, I like those cars too!) Right
outside the door of the Riverside 12 theaters they were having
a car race... News and media was everywhere... Why they weren't
covering "the real story", I have no idea... They were running
countless stories every night of how the gas prices hit "the
highest levels in history" all that month... But right
here, in bold letters on the marquee of the theater the worlds
"who killed the electric car" were not noticed.
I guess people are just not looking for solutions...
Creating and marketing the EV-1 was a huge
step for GM to take, and although they did not fully commit
to the project you have to understand they put themselves in
a position to lose money... Their destruction of the cars was
disappointing but at least they tried!
Some interesting facts:
* GM leased EV-1's to people
WHO LOVED THEM, and begged to keep the cars but in an act of
"corporate insanity" seized the cars, smashed them and stock
piled them in the Arizona desert. GM made the mistake
of turning the EV-1's into martyrs!, This was such a blatant
act of sabotage to the electric car industry we wonder if this
was part of a grand scheme to get the public to take notice?
IT WORKED!
* Battery
technologies have been developed to greatly increase the range
of electric cars... But, the oil companies have throughout
history purchased the technologies and buried them... Right
now the EUROPOSITRON BATTERY is underdevelopment in Finland,
this battery promises 20 times the power of todays lead acid
batteries... The public should hold accountable any corporations
that buy into these companies and prosecute them for committing
crimes to society.
* There is estimated
to be at least 100,000,000 (one hundred trillion) dollars
worth of oil left to be drilled, pumped, refined and delivered
to the gas guzzling public... They're going to squash any
form of alternative transportation to protect their profits.
Oil companies are in control of all markets, and high
oil prices will hold the world in recession, it will be up
to YOU, and your neighbors to seek alternatives, and those
alternatives will not be an easy fix...
* California started
the race for clean cars in the 1990's with the "Clean Air
Mandate" which would force auto manufacturers to produce
a growing percentage of clean air vehicles over a 20 year
timeframe. In a shocking turn of events the California board
members killed the mandate, ignored the publics appeals and
it "almost" looked like the board members were "influenced",
"paid off", "suppressed" or maybe even blackmailed to do so.
The footage of a public hearing where the auto reps had the
floor all morning, then the "regular people" had a few minutes
to speak was priceless!.. We
can't begin to speculate what the truth is about this but
someone got to someone! Let's hope Vito Corleone didn't chop
off an EV-1's head and put it in the head of the CARB's bed!
* At it's peak production
GM was building four EV-1's per day... GM claimed on of the
reasons they "crushed the project" was that they could not
sell the EV-1's and make a profit. GM!, come on, build
4 Corvettes a day and you would need to sell them for $350,000
a piece! Build 200-500 EV-1's a day and you could sell them
for $25,000 each... that's high school economics!...
* GM claimed "the public
didn't want to buy the EV-1". (This statement was almost so
ridicules we should not even respond to it, but... in case
someone out there is wondering) GM spent about a whopping
one million bucks on promoting the EV-1, they produced crappy
TV commercials, that were ran only a few times, and almost
showed electric cars as "scary" and to put this into comparison
THE AVERAGE SUPERBOWL SHOWS $50 MILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF CAR
COMMERCIALS AND PROMOTION... Toy companies spend $10-100 million
dollars promoting new products... That was a pathetic and
paltry promo budget at best.
* Some people blame
the government, specifically George Bush, Bill Clinton and
Congress for not pushing GM and other auto manufacturers to
build electric cars. The cost of campaigning to become
a United States President is now over $40 Million dollars
(40 times what GM put into the EV-1 promotion)... Who has
that kind of money to back a candidate? Hmm, let's think...
Oh yea, THE OIL AND AUTO COMPANIES! The funny thing is that
every President offers his support of Electric Cars in his
last term in office (to sound like he cares about the environment)...
and every President vitos that program in his first year in
office (because he knows the budget won't support it)...
* GM, along with the
Government's influence is spending BILLIONS of DOLLARS to
produce Hydrogen powered vehicles. You know how we
feel about these cars that will require "hydro-fueling stations"
be constructed in place of todays gas stations... (a hydrogen
bomb waiting for terrorists in your neighborhood?) The movie
exposed the truth about this technology. It's too expensive,
the cars will be too expensive and the outcome will be you
paying $5 a unit for hydro instead of $5 a gallon for gas...NO
THANKS!
* At the same time GM
trashed the EV-1 they invested HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
INTO THE HUMMER... They said "This is the vehicle the public
wants to buy"... I have no comment worth writing
about that statement... maybe just say "#@^%3!!*
* It took a law to force
auto manufacturers to put seat belts in cars in the 1980's! This
sums up the bottom line... Electric Cars are clean, inexpensive
to operate but will not be widely available until someone
in power steps up to the plate and goes all the way... If
I didn't spend so many years chasing girls and playing in
rock bands I'd run for President! (owner - Bruce
Gast)
* GO SEE THE MOVIE!!!
Entertainment
Weekly:
Reviewed by Owen Gleiberman
When I first heard there was a documentary
called Who Killed the Electric Car?, it didn't take rocket science
to divine the movie's theme (environmental innovation squelched
by oil profits), but I assumed that the electric car in question
would be some weird, bubbly, futuristic prototype sitting in
a lab somewhere. The movie's first revelation is that these
babies truly existed, and that they were right there on the
open road -- hundreds of them, zipping down the highways of
California beginning in 1996, the result of a state mandate
that said by 2003, 10 percent of all new vehicles had to be
emission-free.
y all accounts, not just that of Tom Hanks
(who we see proselytizing for the cause on Letterman), the electric
car, produced by General Motors, was fast, attractive, and fun
to drive. Its singular disadvantage was that the battery needed
to be recharged every 60 to 80 miles. But imagine that you were
judging the home computer based on, say, a 1984 Macintosh. There's
a word for what was needed to upgrade the electric car -- that
word is ''progress'' -- and the second revelation of Who Killed
the Electric Car? is that GM, in deciding (at the probable behest
of other forces) not just to stop developing this revolutionary
vehicle but to take every last one of them off the road and
destroy them, did something profoundly un-American: It turned
progress back on itself. Who Killed the Electric Car? makes
you angry, and also sad, to live in a country where innovation
could be contrived into an enemy.
E!
Online:
Yet another doc that calls the corporate world
to task, Who Killed the Electric Car? follows the path of these
innovative pollution-free autos from the factory to the junkyard.
Automakers developed the cars in response to a mandate by the
California state government to clean up smoggy skies. Car companies
found this not worth the time and effort and sued the state.
They won, and shockingly, not only did companies
halt production, they repossessed the cars and sent them to
dirty graves. Why take back cars from eager owners? Why give
up on clean, efficient technology? Director Chris Paine finds
plenty of unsavory answers that make you want to lease a hybrid
ASAP. Though it's hard not to be partial, Paine largely succeeds
in presenting the cold hard facts--and entertains and educates
at the same time.
FilmCritic.com:
film review by Chris Cabin - Copyright © 2006 filmcritic.com
According to everyone, from Al Gore to Michael
Moore to Oliver Stone, in the not so distant future, we're all
going to bear witness to a mighty big shit storm (academics
have adorably nicknamed this happening "the Apocalypse").
Thusly, everyone from your grandmother to the brother of the
guy who directed Capturing the Friedmans is working on a documentary
to pinpoint what exactly will be the cause of this shit storm.
At last we left it, Al Gore and Davis Guggenheim were telling
us that it will be good ol' Mother Nature who finally exacts
much-needed revenge on us in An Inconvenient Truth. Chris Paine
adds a footnote to that story with Who Killed the Electric Car?
In the '90s, there was a brief moment where
it looked like all these oil concerns could be alleviated. Many
of the most prominent car companies had designed a car that,
much like a cell phone, could simply be plugged in at night
and would be ready to drive to and from work when you got up.
However, most of these cars never saw the light of day and those
that did were quickly called back, even ones that were given
to celebrities like Tom Hanks and Mel Gibson. The film presupposes
that this was a conspiracy concocted by the oil companies, the
government, and the car companies to keep us all sucking at
the slick-black oil teat. A good case is made in the film, but
it's not really delivered with enough conviction or backing.
How did Paine allow crazy Mel Gibson to run
away with the film? The most engaging parts of the film are
watching Gibson yammering on about how much he loved his electric
car. Besides these brief moments, the film is left to stand
alone on its educated legs, devoid of charm or real humor. Expect
to see eyes roll when an engineer who worked on the EV1 (Electric
Vehicle 1) goes to a car museum and pets the last electric car
that hasn't been brought in for destruction. Even worse, Paine
stages an actual funeral for the damn car, in some peculiar
stab to amp up a satirical edge. The information, as stated
before, makes a good case that this was a money-over-the-greater-good
conspiracy. But where An Inconvenient Truth has the information
and a bewilderingly-charming Al Gore to supply reasons, Who
Killed the Electric Car? has no focus or reason apart from its
history lesson.
Electric Car brings up an interesting idea
that it might not have intended to do: Is there any surprise
that the oil companies would pull something like this? It's
hard to refute that the oil companies are willing to do just
about anything to keep the money rolling in along with the black
gold. So, why try to bill a film like this as an "important" film?
It doesn't bring up anything supremely new or surprising to
merit attention, nor does it have even half the entertainment
that the Hybrid episode of South Park had. What it does have
is a ticket into the much overpopulated current culture of conspiracy,
where anyone with a secret document or a hushed correspondence
can make a 90-minute film and feel like they are Woodward and
Bernstein. They're not, and, to no surprise, the shit storm
is still looming in the distance.
WhoKilledtheElectricCar
.com
2006
Tribeca Film Festival
|
