My Scientology Movie (2016)

So much average

good film but with many flaws

The movie is made so realistic it has a lot of that WoW feeling at the right moments and never tooo over the top. the suspense is done so well and the emotion is felt. Very well put together with the music and all.

Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

Interesting in parts. Humorous in parts. Why we needed to see wannabe actors auditioning for scenes that don't end up featuring in the film? No idea. If it was meant as a substitute for material that they knew they wouldn't get, then it I'm afraid it failed.They had so little access, unsurprisingly, that it didn't really teach us anything we didn't already know. The 'squirreling' isn't a revelation, I think most of us have seen film of middle aged saddos trying to wind leavers up. Some of the old footage was interesting but Louis didn't add to that library. The film did succeed in showing Marty's colours, this former Church 'muscle' objected to being reminded of his hypocrisy by Louis after the Church made veiled threats, who knows what he actually did. Felt Louis ducked that one though, afraid of losing his best subject. In fact, the whole thing lacked daring.Ultimately, not very satisfying. Might be a good for somebody who has lived under a rock and doesn't know anything about the Cult and their crazy folk.

Greetings again from the darkness. Here's hoping Tom Cruise doesn't hunt me down, and that a group of believers doesn't shout insults at me in an airport; but I'll admit that the more I learn about the Church of Scientology, the more creeped out I get. Director John Dower and BBC reporter Louis Theroux do nothing to put me at ease or even help understand how people fall for this "religion" … a self-described "universal solvent".Yes, Scientology is a religion that was founded by a science fiction writer. The genre has seen many popular writers over the years - Ray Bradbury, Arthur C Clarke, H.G. Wells, and Philip K Dick were all great writers, and some were read religiously by their fans. However only one, L Ron Hubbard, had the pluck to actually start a religious cult and consider himself God's conduit. His 1950 book "Dianetics" is known as Book One and the foundation for the movement that became Scientology.Mr. Hubbard died in 1986. Twenty-something David Miscavige took control and to this day remains the mysterious leader of the organization. His one TV interview was in 1990 with Ted Koppell on "Nightline" and he has since refrained from public appearances – a stance that has only enhanced the weirdness and rumors surrounding Scientology. Instead, public figures like Tom Cruise and John Travolta have become the faces that people associate with the organization, and have been influential in recruiting efforts.The extremely polite Theroux takes an unusual approach to this and actually holds auditions for the key roles of David Miscavige and Tom Cruise, with the plan to reenact some of the more infamous ongoings behind the secure walls of Scientology. When the open call for participants hits social media, warnings to Theroux start flooding in – literally cautioning him to stay away from this subject. Undeterred, though maybe a bit shaken (is Paz de la Huerta a bikini-clad spy?), he enlists Marty Rathbun, a former senior leader in Scientology. He bolted after 27 years, and the organization now labels him as an embittered SP (Suppressive Person) and works to discredit everything he says.Andrew Perez wins the role of Miscavige by expressing the necessary level of "righteous anger" according to Rathbun. The reenactments of Miscavige speeches, the E-meter sessions, and bull-baiting (belittling to build backbone) provide us a simulated peek behind the cloak of secrecy. We learn about The Celebrity Centre, Gold Base, and The Hole – each adding to the creepiness that is difficult to shake.Three other former Scientologists are interviewed: Tom De Vochts, Marc Headley and Jeff Hawkins. It's through them that we learn about Sea Orgs – the most devoted of those within the organization. There is also a fascinating tie-in with Mr. Hawkins' wife Catherine Frazier, who not only remains an active Scientologist, but plays a key role in one of Theroux's contentious interactions on a road that is either public or private, depending on whom you ask.Alex Gibney's Going Clear documentary stands in contrast to Theroux's almost playful approach to getting information and details out of those who were/are there. Although the playfulness disappears when, late in the film, Theroux confronts Mr. Rathbun on his role in building the structure that he now condemns. We know we can't trust the "church", but we (including Theroux) are never quite sure whether to trust Rathbun, or if he is merely out for revenge. It's rare that a true story can provide such comical moments and yet, at its core, provide such frightening insights. Call it a cult, a religion, an organization, or any other label you prefer … it's still just plain creepy.

Exposing Scientology has become something of a genre unto itself, and this doesn't really break any new ground. There are the usual stories of coercion, confrontations and creepy interactions we've come to expect from Scientologists. If you've seen Going Clear, the Leah Remini series, or even the South Park episode, you won't learn anything you didn't know.Still, he manages to keep it interesting. The most unique thing he does is hire actors to play out various scenes, with guidance from former Scientologists - mostly Mark Rathbun, the former "Inspector General of the Religious Technology Center". Particular emphasis is given to correctly capturing the explosive temper of David Miscavige.The biggest weakness in the movie is that Mark Rathbun is kind of an annoying guy. Whereas most former Scientologists are contrite about their own behavior in the cult, he really doesn't take ownership of his past at all. He continuously complains about the abusive tactics the Church uses against him and his family, but whenever Theroux politely points out that he certainly did similar things in the past, he goes into a snit. Weirdly, one of the things that seems to bother him the most is that the Church doesn't acknowledge what a "big shot" he was.Not a bad way to pass a couple hours, but not likely to be remembered for long.

MY SCIENTOLOGY MOVIE is a big-screen outing for the likable documentarian Louis Theroux, well known here in the UK for his TV series WEIRD WEEKENDS, which I personally loved. The subject matter of this one is obvious from the title, but the problem is that there are already documentaries on the same subject matter, and better ones too. Even the notorious PANORAMA episode with the on-air presenter breakdown is better than Theroux's version.The problem with this is the lack of really meaty material. You want to see Theroux infiltrating the church, interviewing members and causing consternation, but aside from a couple of arguments in the street, none of that really happens. Theroux attempts to get around this lack of meat by staging re-enactments of certain real-life events and, while dramatic, they're just not as effective as true documentary footage would be. That's why I don't like documentaries which extensively use re-enactment footage, although there are a few exceptions like THE IMPOSTER where it is effective.