classicalsteve If there's anything I gleaned from this film, it's that the people in the Church of Scientology seem to be anything but compassionate and open. Vindictiveness appears to be their modus operandi. The film is an improvised documentary in which spontaneous encounters demonstrate the twisted world of the Church of the Scientology. Even those among the Church of Latter Day Saints, i.e. the Mormons, were more magnanimous about the musical "The Book of Mormon". PBS did an exposé on the Mormons in which many Mormons and ex-Mormons were interviewed. To their credit they didn't seem to be frightened some skeletons would be unearthed from their closets, although they did draw the line in terms of allowing outsiders access to their ceremonies inside their temples. (They did offer some footage showing the inside of one temple without people.) By contrast, the Church of Scientology doesn't merely decline; they literally put up roadblocks in public areas near some of their facilities! They have continually rejected to participate in any kind of documentary about them. They won't give interviews, they dislike outsiders questioning their practices, and they seem most loath to let anyone research their history. If former members claim any kind of shortcoming or social infraction, large or small, they are labeled as liars and transgressors.In one of their most telling responses to allegations of impropriety at the hands of David Miscavige, the Church's absolute ruler, the Church claimed that any such allegations "were extremely false." I didn't know there were gradations of falsifications! I thought something was true or untrue. Saying that such allegations were "extremely false" seems to me a red flag that something must be true. Of course they offer no explanation as to why someone who left the Church might make such accusations, except to call them all liars. Interestingly, so many of ex-Scientologists make the same accusations. It must be a conspiracy to threaten the survival of the Church. Of course, such accusations if proved true will threaten the survival of the Church! Is there an irony here? The writer, producer and narrator, Louis Theroux solicits the help of Mark "Marty" Rathbun, a former inner-circle "cabinet" member whose job had been to protect the doctrine, essentially both from within and without. During the documentary, Rathburn claims he not only witnessed but participated in punishments upon members who had transgressed against either the Church itself or its leader David Miscavige. One of their main punishments was to humiliate "guilty" members in front of others. A bigger punishment was to send transgressors to "The Hole", a kind of Scientology detention center. He says he also engaged in harassment of outsiders whom Miscavige believed might undermine the Church's mission. Rathburn then found himself on the receiving end of such discipline and promptly left the Church. Members who leave the Church and criticize it are labeled PTS (Potential Trouble Sources) and SP (Suppressive Persons). As far as I could tell, Rathburn has been labeled both.Aside from Rathburn, the really telling scenes are the confrontations between Theroux with people who refuse to identify themselves but are clearly acting under orders from the Church. During one such conflict, the filmmakers come to the outskirts of a Scientology outpost called "The Hole" where Rathburn and other ex-Scientologists claim punishments have been enacted. They don't enter private property but are simply on a public street near a sign which says "Road Closed". They are immediately confronted by Scientology "guards" who order them to disperse as if they have governmental authority. Theroux counters that they are on a public road, and they have a permit to film. A woman who confronts the filmmakers won't even look at the permit, but simply keeps reiterating they have must leave or face criminal consequences. It should be pointed out that no non-governmental civilian has the authority to arrest someone outright except in the event of a felonious crime, a.k.a. a citizen's arrest. Trespassing is not a felony, probably only a misdemeanor in California. If they were truly egregiously trespassing, they should have called the police, not confront the trespassers and threaten them with arrest.During every confrontation, the Scientologists and gatekeepers won't engage in a discussion but either claim they are being trespassed upon or simply remain silent. Another former member explains that their behavior is to impress David Miscavige, an audience essentially of one. The other aspect of the documentary is auditioning actors to play key roles of the prominent members, primarily David Miscavige and Tom Cruise, probably the most famous Scientologist on the planet. In the irony of ironies, every confrontation scene just proved to me over and over again that the Church of Scientology is clearly guilty of the things of which they are being accused. It's like the person harboring illegal weapons in their house who refuse to let their house be searched without a warrant. My first thought is, what are they hiding and being so adamant about their secrecy?

ejonconrad 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.

Leofwine_draca 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.

emilyjmalbon I've watched all of Louis Theroux's documentaries with great interest. What I like about him is the way he interviews his subjects with an open mind and seemingly without bias. He's interviewed some rotten people but he lets them have their say whilst still challenging them. I expected the same from this movie but it just wasn't there, largely because of the lack of access Louis had to the church. This meant that the whole movie pretty much relied on testimony and input from former church henchman, Mark. The trouble with Mark was he is an unreliable witness. He was willing to speak about the brutality the church inflicted against him, but shut Louis down every time he tried to probe him about the brutality Mark might have inflicted against others. Mark did come across as deeply unlikeable and "embittered", as the church described him, so it was difficult to know whether what he was saying was true, even if it was wholly believable. At one point another person Louis interviewed claimed that "Mark knows where all the bodies are". That was the last we heard about that though. I wanted to know if it was true. Louis seemed afraid to ask Mark direct questions.In my opinion the movie didn't really go anywhere or raise any new questions. For a large part of the film we're forced to watch Louis and Mark recruit actors to play the head of the church and Tom Cruise. They then barely even used these actors to recreate scenes for us, and when they did, it was like watching a bad play. I just didn't see the point of it, especially as the script was written by Mark, so it was all entirely his depiction of events. Overall I was disappointed in this film. I think its downfall was it's over-reliance on Mark and lack of access to the church. They just didn't have enough content for an entire film.