Hulkeasexo it is the rare 'crazy' movie that actually has something to say.

Grimossfer Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

InformationRap This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Hattie I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

ejonconrad I really don't know why I put myself through the pain of watching this nonsense.I'm a physics professor and researcher, and I've made kind of a hobby of studying free energy scams, so I'm very familiar with Mr. Newman. When I give talks on the subject, I frequently used clips of him to demonstrate "technical sounding gobbledygook". He sounds pretty rational in this movie - at least at first, but if you go to YouTube, he makes it clear that he has no understanding of even the most basic concepts of work and energy.The documentary trots out a whole host of "experts" who turn out not to be experts at all. For example they rely a lot on a guy named Evan Soule, Jr, who is identified as a "physicist"; however, if you search, you'll find that the only thing he's ever done is to work for Newman.Although there's no narration, the makers also appear to accept everything Newman and his supporters at at face value, even when the counter-evidence is right in front of there eyes. For example, at one point, they say his machine is running on a "few batteries", while holding up a couple of AAA cells. Later, we see that it's actually running on a very large bank of batteries, and no one seems to comprehend that there's nothing particularly impressive about that. Indeed, if you know anything about Newman, he never understood that putting a lot of batteries together can produce a lot of power. In one of his YouTube videos, he's very impressed that he can power a pickup truck (at about 1 mph) using "only" 6 12-V car batteries. The fact is that the NBS did test Newman's machine and found that it was a rather inefficient motor. End of story. All that stuff about "grounding the motor" was just nonsense.The documentary tries to make it seem like not getting the patent kind of drove Newman crazy, but the fact is he was always just a pathetic nut who wasted his entire life working on nonsense.Here's the bottom line: if a motor puts out more energy than it takes in, then you can connect the output to the input and run it without an external energy source. In all the years Newman hawked his "motor", he never did that. Because he couldn't. Because it didn't work. Period.

vinyaasi The only insipidness to this movie is how forlorn Newman became after he crashed. I know... He was, and remained, a boxer. But that only helps hide his shame.Fraud is the most difficult thing to disprove. And film-fantasies tend to create characterizations of criminals parallel to the characterizations of inventors functioning outside of social norms.Newman was crucified on his own cross of ambition - which says nothing of the caliber of his device, but instead - says everything about our characterization as a society hell-bent on crucifying anyone who thinks, feels, or acts in a manner which discomforts us.If we had been stupid enough for all of us to back him, then our society - as we know it - would have collapsed.We take our corporate world too much for granted. Our money would become worthless if free energy dominated all of our machinery. Quality of life would replace the Gross National Product as a measuring rod of how well we're doing. And sovereignty would replace eminent domain. That is heresy in today's world wherein the individual is less important than is government.Newman had the backing of physicists, but that was short-lived.He had the backing of the public. But that died out once we lost him in our collective focus.We are taught innumerable lies, such as this one... When Charlton Heston's character, in the Planet of the Apes movie, sees the statue of Liberty immersed in the Earth at the close of that movie indicating that he had not traveled to another planet, but -instead- had merely traveled forward in time within his own planet. The implication, here, is that the only way for the sovereignty of the individual to return and the eminent domain of governments to die is for us to return to our prehistorically, barbaric ways of life.This is not true, but is what we are encouraged to believe so as to avoid another possibility: that our institutions will die - not our culture - since it is the centralization of institutionalized power that holds back the avant-garde inventor. The Industrial Revolution only helps our institutions. It does not help the sovereign inventor, for he has to help himself.Newman can't rescue us. We have to rescue ourselves just as he rescued himself from the ignorance of pathological science quagmired in stock expressions along with a lack of knowing how the application of those socially contrived idioms is flawed - not the expressions, themselves.Take, for example, the expression: "Energy OUT (must equal) energy IN". That is a derivation of E = M x C-squared in which energy is to the left of the equal sign and matter is to the right. Thus, energy cannot come out if it goes in for, then, it would be on both sides of that famous equation. Instead, "Energy (coming) OUT must equal Matter and the Speed of Light Squared (going) IN". Hence, we cannot have energy on both sides of an equivalence. That would be like saying: "A rose is a rose" - which is not nonsense; it's just not telling us anything.Another telling example is how Wikipedia presents Noether's theorem: by convoluting their sentence structure in the course of explaining her theory: "systems which are not invariant under shifts in time (an example, systems with time dependent potential energy) do not exhibit conservation of energy" which translates into: "Variable energy does not conserve itself over time." Another: "rose is a rose".That's not a law of physics. Nor is it a venerable theorem. It's a failure to come out and say in plain English that there is no such thing as a Law of the Conservation of Energy.Did Newman fail us? Did he fail himself? Or, do we collectively fail ourselves on a daily basis?

hardcase_1999 The review is simple - this is NOT a documentary. It is an insipid piece of promotional propaganda in furtherance of a hoax. This tripe never even attempts to justify or explain the science behind the fraudulent claims made by Joe Newman, one can safely assume because there is none. In totality the content contained herein consists of know nothings jabbering nonsense. The authors of this trash are not filmmakers, they are accomplices.