My Scientology Movie (2015) User Reviews

Best insight into this paranoid organisation

[baf-89893 · 8/10 · 19 January 2017]

I find Scientology and cults in general a fascinating subject and have watched most documentaries on the subject including the most recent one by Alex Gibney, Going Clear. Both this and Going Clear are excellent exposes but in different ways. As one reviewer said Going Clear is more factual whilst this one gives you a better feeling of Scientology is all about - a good description in my opinion.

I've often got the feeling that Scientology is somewhere between a cult and a religion but this film, more than any other, puts it squarely in the cult category.

Right from the outset you get a feel for this. Requests for interviews by Theroux are turned down by the church an almost unheard of response for an organisation that large. Most will have P.R departments ready to go to any and all media interests.

This makes it hard for Theroux of course. His usual film making style is subtle and he spends considerable time those involved, something impossible with this subject.

So he decides to use actors and actresses to re-enact some of the abuse by the organisation's head, David Miscavige. This is powerful stuff which is different to simply hearing reports of the same abuse.

But I found the real behaviour of the real Scientologists even more damning, particularly when coupled with commentary by ex-Scientologists. Near the end of the film the organisation sent a letter to Louis Theroux saying because he was making a documentary about them they intended to make a documentary about him. Such a response seemed just so totally infantile, like a young child's tit for tat: if you take mine I'll take yours kind of response. On top of the rest of the film this gave an insight into just how separated this group is from mainstream society - to even think that was an appropriate response.

All in all one comes away with the a real sense that Scientology is run by a powerful and paranoid sociopath who has somehow managed to get away with what he is doing for years. A great effort by Theroux that worked much better than his older documentary on another cult: the Westboro Baptist Church.

If The Church of Scientology is so Benevolent and Caring Why Do They Act So Guilty?

[classicalsteve · 7/10 · 13 October 2017]

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?

one of theroux's most disappointing works

[houseoliverfragrances · 6/10 · 6 October 2016]

I was so excited to finally see this documentary, however the lack of access Louis is able to gain into the church makes for a very boring and uncaptivating documentary.

apart from the odd confrontation with a church member which is somewhat entertaining, there is nothing of substance in this 'movie' no direction at all.

We all know they're a bunch of loonies but this being a theroux doco I wanted something more. Something that would really shock me.

Perhaps this is the reason for the delayed release of this film. With such little footage I can imagine this being a challenging piece to put together.

Why couldn't he go undercover and try to gain some sort of access into the church? Perhaps do an auditing session and turn it into an interview very subtly (which we know he's good at).

I'm a huge fan of this man's work but this this just doesn't do it for me. I rarely lose focus when watching anything louis. I just can;t find any sort of story in this. A strange movie that has left little impact, only repeating things we already knew about this psychotic church.

Certainly stands out from his programmes

[Darkskynet · 7/10 · 19 October 2016]

For those of you who have a keen interest in cults, let me make clear that this film isn't to teach you the ways of Scientology, more to help expose what they're really hiding.

It opens with various clips of the Scientology Church just to show you the impact and scale this 'religion' has made and answers the questions, 'why make a film about it?'

Enter Louis. One of BBCs most un-intimidating journalists to date. He visits EX Scientologists who expose the Church for what it really is. Going into detail about how many felt they were kept against their will, beaten, and shockingly harassed in their own homes once leaving the church. This side of the film, is very much like his regular programme. The way Louis Interviews, and the filmic style is 'samey', so nothing new here, though very interesting.

To fully understand the teaching behind Scientology, Louis hired actors to re create various stages of the Church. This was a very love/hate area for myself. Even though it was entertaining, and it did give you an eerie sense of what goes on behind the Churches doors, it also felt like a forceful 'fill' to separate programme with film.

Another issue I had with the film was there seemed to be no attempt to physically contact one of the leaders of the Church, David Miscavidge. Unlike previous documentaries where Louis will forcefully never stop hassling until he gets some form of meeting, this filmed seem to lack that and focus more on the recreation videos.

Overall, If you enjoy watching Louis Theroux, then you wont be disappointed. He excels in his journalistic performance. He keeps you on the edge of your seat in such a passive, non aggressive way. Moments of humour are clear in the film, which if you know Theroux style documentaries will fully understand.

For those who would like to watch this as a one off, don't expect a comedy and don't expect an educational video. This is about exposure behind closed doors.

why do people join?

[ferguson-6 · 6/10 · 12 June 2017]

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.

A Nice Supplemental

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 3 August 2017]

Louis Theroux documents his investigation into what goes on behind the scenes of the infamous Church of Scientology.

As of right now (2017), there are two big documentaries on Scientology. This one, and the one made by HBO. Frankly, the HBO one is a bit better and definitely a must-see. This one is also good, and while it covers much of the same ground, it does go into other areas, too. Theroux, to his credit, seems to have very little fear of being arrested and gets some great footage near the base.

This film does have some strange narrative devices, such as casting actors in the roles of real Scientologists and then having them act out events that allegedly occurred. One scene in particular (in "the hole") is very effective. The casting of "Tom Cruise", unfortunately, never seems to go anywhere.

Abusive religion

[coreyjdenford · 6/10 · 7 October 2016]

This is my review of My Scientology Movie (spoiler free)

*** (3/5)

MAKING A DOCUMENTARY about such an elusive subject like Scientology will always guarantee the filmmaker a decent sized audience. For instance maybe a small army of lawyers. Alex Gibney estimates that around 160 legal eagles watched last year's documentary Going Clear before its initial set release, and at times it's almost too hard to imagine that Louis Theroux's addition to L. Ron Hubbard's DVD cupboard wasn't given a similarly fine-toothed treatment. Although there are a few people most likely to goad at this litigious organisation than a man who's turned the tables on everybody from White Supremacists to Westboro Baptist's rabid flock just by asking the right questions, listening a lot and being disarmingly goofy and somewhat admirable. But while the BBC's mild-mannered assassin brings all of his weapons to bear here – like awkward long silences, innocent but insistent probing, and using his vast reserves of likability – however he somewhat meets his match with Scientology.

He is constantly bombarded by the organisations bug-eyed loyalists, threatened by its long list of lawyers and he is unable to get close to its leader David Miscavige, Theroux instead chooses to recreate its practices (and, more pertinently, malpractices) using young unknown actors he casts in sessions, with a little bit guidance from former Scientologists-turned feared whistleblower Mark Rathbun, and even the odd visit to its headquarters. Unfortunately unlike one of its inspirations, Joshua Oppenheimer's, The Act of Killing, Theroux's gambit is only half successful. As Oppenheimer's film featured real people recreating their own shocking acts of genocide; here Theroux's actors make willing surrogates, but they're no proper substitute for the access to the organisation itself. Although they do pull off a rather convincing recreation to the infamous Hole which is used as a prison for some of the more senior Scientologists (or sea orgs) where some of the more extreme allegation to abuse took place, however since then Miscavige has denied the allegations and the existence to The Hole. There is one scene when Theroux is put under a lie detector and Mark is stating that this technique would be used as part of the Scientology agreement, it's a way that Miscavige would look into your memories and see if you really belong to be part of the church.

Theroux travels all around Los Angeles learning about the recklessness of Scientology and what kind of place it really is even with top Hollywood actor Tom Cruise played pretty convincingly by Rob Alter, who has pretty much the same smile and repeating lines from the real Tom Cruise archive footage which Rarthbun was so eager to show, when Theroux learns some of the key phrases and acronyms from Scientology. There are a few times when Theroux tries to investigate some of the key sites that are part of the organisation but he is told to leave the premises as he is trespassing and told to drive off a mile away from their road, even though the road in question was a public freeway. But these Scientologists felt threatened by his presence. There is one moment when he meets Tom de Vocht one of the more senior members of the group and he calls it a cult and Theroux learns that he was abused almost every day for 31 years as he was a part of the church throughout the second act Theroux learns about all these techniques one of which called squirrel busting, and he is eager to try out this technique were there will be many abusive words used, and other members laughing as they try it. Throughout the movie it has some funny moments, mostly with the squirrel busting, however Mark was ambushed by other members who were squirrel busting him, and yet again Miscavige tried denying that his members do that as a harassment technique.

During the engaging third act of the film Theroux learns that Rathbun has a very dark secret that he was one of the top members of the group and he learns that he was a much feared individual as at some points with the group he would help Miscavige with the abuse, which can be shown as he argues with Theroux after he is harassed by yet another few Scientology members who abuse him. Also Theroux reads a statement that Rathbun wrote about the group filled with some rather aggressive words against the church. Ultimately My Scientology Movie has very engaging and entertaining moments mixed with some sort of funny moments all together stitched up with some clever dialogue and a lot of research all though it would have been nice if we could meet the real David Miscavige this is a movie he may never see, it's a very intriguing documentary that sometimes fails to deliver at some other points.

VERDICT: Theroux's first big-screen doc is an entertaining affair peppered with surreal moments and wry wit; but unfortunately its elusive screwed up elusive subject is out of reach.

6/10 entertaining.

Brilliantly done by Theroux

[karlodonnell-16099 · 10/10 · 16 August 2016]

A great movie, by the master of documentaries and as always it was both funny and enlightening. I don't want to spoil anything but definitely worth the watch and if you like louis theroux you know what to expect already.

As Scientology of course denied access to any of its higher up people Louis improvised and created a unique documentary that can finally allow people to see what Scientology is and what the people are really like within it.

Not sure about the other review, he must of been a Scientology troll. How can anyone not trust Louis :)

The parts they show in the trailers are good, the rest disappoints

[peefyn · 6/10 · 13 November 2016]

I am a big fan of Louis Theroux, and also enjoy him in this documentary. But it kind of misses its mark. Louis never gets to spend much time with Scientologists (though not for lack of trying), which is sad, as those few bizarre moments are the clear highlight of the documentary. Instead, he goes on a mission to make a vague reenactment of certain moments in David Miscavige's life, as a way to explore the background and motives behind the organization and Miscavige himself. It's not that interesting, and it doesn't really reveal much beyond what you learn from other documentaries on the same subject (Going clear, for instance).

The meetings with former church members are alright, and there is at least a couple of really good moments with them. But perhaps because they are not the people he is after, Louis never probes that deep into them. If he did, those moments does not end up on screen.

It's a documentary worth watching if you like his stuff, but it's not as good as many of the episodes of his shows.

In the shadow of Going Clear.

[kodakManiac · 5/10 · 7 October 2016]

People that know nothing about scientology will find this movie to be a little bit confusing, and people that know about scientology will find the movie a little bit boring.

My Scientology Movie has some funny scenes and interesting moments, but in the end you don't get a really profound impression of what the "church" is all about. Alex Gibney's Going Clear does a way better job, tackling the same subject.

Doing press for his film, Louis Theroux talked negatively about Alex Gibney's Going Clear, calling it a "talking heads" movie, and that My Scientology Movie used a more interesting approach. This is where Theroux is wrong, dead wrong.

When you start talking about scientology, a thousand questions pop up, and those questions need to be answered. And that is where Going Clear prospers and My Scientology Movie ends up being a missed opportunity.

Surreal, sinister, funny and thoroughly Therouxvian

[garyprosser1 · 8/10 · 10 October 2016]

I had waited a very long time to see Louis Theroux's 'My Scientology Movie' but it was well worth the wait. It's a film that doesn't set out to be all "look at these guys, they're insane, let's laugh at them" because Louis is so much better than that but it's simply impossible to view this bizarre, insular, sinister cult as anything else. What this film isn't, and isn't trying to be (as a few negative reviews I've seen have decried), is an exposé or a secrets-revealed piece. A very bright light has been shone on Scientology for a long time now and while there are surely dark secrets aplenty yet to be revealed, Louis knew a decade ago that he was never going to gain access to the 'Church' because it isn't like that. The Church has all the security of an air base so it was never going to be a case of donning a false beard and wandering in with a camera in a home-all. The Westboro Baptist Church welcomed Louis into the fold so that they could spread their poisonous agenda through his films. Scientology neither wants nor seemingly needs his help and they will guard their secrets ferociously. Knowing this, Louis changes tack and tries a different approach and for the most part, succeeds in doing things differently.

With Christianity (and most major faiths), any secrets are very thin on the ground. You're given everything; there's even a book that details absolutely everything you need to know and you're required to read it. With Scientology, you are drip fed what you need/want to know bit by bit and to know more, you need to pay (A LOT) more money at each stage and devote more and more of your life to the cause. Essentially, you're brainwashed and institutionalised to the point whereby if you reach the upper echelons, you can't leave and if you do, they will make your life hell. The film documents this as Louis sees first hand just how secretive, paranoid and threatening this 'Church' (and they do have religious status) is.

All of this is pretty common knowledge of course and while I don't think the film provides any major revelations that weren't already out there to find, the insights from former members go further than perhaps they have before, thanks in no small part to Louis' genius at getting as much out of people as he can. It's a film that's thoroughly absorbing, creepy, surreal and often extremely funny. More so than any other film he's done, Louis is brave, ambitious and ultimately, ballsy in the subject he's chosen. It's out on DVD soon, so buy it.

Nothing really new, but worth watching

[ejonconrad · 7/10 · 21 March 2017]

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.

It was....okay.

[paulortiz12 · 4/10 · 11 October 2016]

As others have said, the biggest problem with this documentary is the lack of access. Don't get me wrong; some of the testimony from ex members was pretty interesting. Although Louis didn't really push or probe them. And there were some genuinely funny moments. But in the absence of real access, or real insight I was at least hoping for some crazy encounters with the church. But we only got like, two or three brief appearances, none of which were particularly menacing or outlandish.

The reenactments were supposed to be menacing, but it felt a little like watching a drama class doing exercises.

So yeah I dunno. Overall a bit disappointed. I mean it was £15(!!) at the cinema! Expected more.

Typically interesting, but nothing we didn't already know

[bowmanblue · 7/10 · 25 January 2017]

I've been a fan of Louis Theroux since his humble TV documentary-making beginnings of the early nineties. Without exception I've enjoyed every small screen outing he's produced. Therefore, I was pretty damn excited when I found his latest (and first) big-screen topic was about none other than one of the most talked about subjects of the modern age – scientology.

It's one of the fastest-growing religions, mainly in America, but its churches have been spreading across the world at a steady rate. Now, the thing about scientology that most people seemed so bemused about, is its secrecy. If I wanted to know about any other world religion, I could probably go into any library or bookstore and pick up a text on how it worked and what it was based on, i.e. the bible for Christianity. The – dare I say – 'problem' with scientology is that no one really speaks openly about what it's all about, leaving much speculation.

The church itself often doesn't do interviews, meaning all we – the public – has to go on is what former members have to say about its practices. So, here comes Louis into the fray. Now, as I just said, the church doesn't do interviews, therefore we don't get any 'official' conformation/denials as to the church's ways and means of doing things. We just get the usual former members.

So, to fill the run-time, Louis re-enacts various 'scenes' from what the 'whistle-blower' says happened. These, although if true are powerful, are only one man's word as to what went on. I'm not saying they're false, but, if a documentary is going to be neutral, we're really only treated to one side of the argument. However, of course because scientologists won't contribute this is hardly Louis' fault – it just makes for a one-sided argument.

If you don't know much about the subject, you may find it all quite enlightening and even shocking, but, if you're like me and have seen plenty of previous documentaries on scientology, then it's all a bit 'samey.' It seems that the church don't like unwanted press/media intrusion and go to lengths to 'retaliate.' This comes in the form of following those following them and Louis often finds himself on the end of their film cameras, plus a few – slightly weird – people simply coming up to 'see what's going on' – do they have an alternative agenda? I guess that's up to you to decide.

Louis Theroux is his natural mild-mannered self (or rather 'persona') making the documentary easy to watch. However, the very subject matter doesn't really lend itself to investigating because we only get one side of the story and there's nothing here that most people who are interested in the subject don't already know (or suspect). Therefore, a lot of the screen-time feels like 'padding' with all these staged reconstructions of alleged events. No concrete conclusions are drawn from it all and whether it's simply a modern-day religion which is no worse than the more 'established' faiths is up to you to decide. If you don't know much about scientology, it will certainly make you think and any fans of Louis – like me – will definitely find plenty to enjoy. I just felt there was nothing here worthy of the extended run-time.

not quite there, DUMB STONY FACE

[lokilfa · 6/10 · 5 October 2016]

As this documentary delves into the cult of Scientology with an unclear objective it stumbles into possibly very interesting facets of its organisation without being able to fulfill any narrative purpose. Through good producers some key ex-members are involved and it seems the authors wished to document through the filming of a reenactment the shady practices, the extremely coercive atmosphere and the tyrannical power structure hidden to the public and known only to insiders of the cult.

And then it goes nowhere.

The documentary devolves into a mess of confrontations with the cult, backstage of the reenactment and interviews with ex-cultists. All these elements end up in a disjointed and clunky effort without any of the three main narratives styles (first-person, interview, reenactment) being brought to a satisfactory conclusion or forming a finite part in a complex scope. Each part losing much of the potential utility to create a complete documentation.

From what the final product looks I have to conclude that Mr. Louis Theroux and Mr. John Dower have done an incompetent job and furthermore the former likes a bit too much to be in front of the camera.

Let me add that although the conditions might have been considered somewhat challenging they seem to have completely lost the sense of "what and why and for whom" while being completely owned by Mr. Marty Rathbun (a key witness) losing perspective while fuelling Rathbun's own personal vendetta with BBC money. Even that might have been interesting to watch and a possible narrative path, instead all Mr. Theroux accomplishes is to annoy and alienate even Rathbun with his useless questions without bringing home nothing for the viewer. In substance the aforementioned pair have simply not enough documentary or journalistic instinct to turn the source to their advantage and get under his skin nor to paint a broader picture by using the source skilfully. They are not able to put up a participated observation (a very well known anthropological technique) nor a selfless journalistic report, ending up in the middle of nowhere.

All Mr. Theroux seems to be good at is to put up A-DUMB-BRIT-STONY-FACE that he thinks passes for grand journalism.

I empathise deeply with Paul Carlin, the film editor, for his pains in putting together something watchable as it is must have been many and prolonged. The whole thing deserves a 6 because of him and the amount of potential gold the producers were able to dig in the first place.

PS Can you imagine this, same premises, but done by Herzog? PPS "He knows were the bodies are..."

Interesting, surprising, unsettling

[Groverdox · 7/10 · 5 January 2017]

"My Scientology Movie" is an interesting documentary. It's certainly not the movie I expected it to be, and nor is it really the movie I wanted. I was thrown by the approach Theroux took, casting actors to play key Scientology figures David Miscavige and Tom Cruise, and having them act out allegedly violent incidents.

On a second watch, the pieces fell into place somewhat. Casting actors to play Scientologists is, after all, what made the Church famous! It seemed a deliberate artifice, but as the documentary explains, that was deliberate on behalf of L. Ron Hubbard, who at first tried to convert the top movie stars of the day - Jimmy Stewart and Greta Garbo - knowing that this was the best possible route for exposure of his religion.

The "artifice", therefore, only brings you closer to understanding what may have happened behind closed doors, especially when you hear ex-Scientology hatchet man Marty Rathbun instructing the actors in how to sound more like the modern-day emperor, David Miscavige.

For a movie with a great deal of deliberate invention, the film also has a few bizarre, unscripted moments, such as the chance appearance of Hollywood party girl Paz de la Huerta, who supposedly thinks Theroux's camera crew are there to film her, and an explosive moment where Marty Rathbun loses his temper with Louis that all fans will want to see for themselves.

The overall impression of the movie is that it's not as much of a Louis Theroux documentary as you might expect. He seems like someone lost at sea around all the conflicting information, the allegations, the stalking and newspeak. He doesn't know who to trust, and neither do we.

It's an unsettling viewing experience, but a worthwhile one, as long as you don't expect any easy answers.

Creepy

[JohnDeSando · 29 March 2017]

"But I've heard it's just brainwashing." Louis Theroux

If you come to this comic documentary to better understand the philosophy of Scientology, you'd be better off looking at the HBO version. My Scientology Movie is documentarian Louis Theroux's attempt to get into the compound and learn about it—the best he can do is recreate some of the better-known actions with actors on a sound stage.

Sure, Tom Cruise is the most notorious member, but you'll see only snippets of him, especially when he accepts a grand medal from leader David Miscavige. Both do little in real life to mitigate the claim that this is a cult with severe laws and punishments. When Theroux has an actor play Miscavige as an almost maniac in the recreated meeting house "The Hole," well, it's scary.

The doc does well when it shows the various control features of the religion's administration; it does not so well showing what the regimen of clearing (like confession for Catholics) does, how it carries through one's life. It does reveal the big sums participants pay at each level of achievement (one claimed already to have paid $50 K for a mid-level rank).

As for the comedy claimed by the IMDb description, to me there was little to none except Theroux's droll take and his surprisingly neutral attitude where Michael Moore would have scowled his way all around the building. The constant adversarial tone between the filmmakers and the religion drags after a while.

We're there to get in inside scoop; we get little scoops of very little except the growing suspicion that we are dealing with a cult that will cleanse you of emotional baggage and purse.

I love Louie, but...

[mesaxi · 6/10 · 16 February 2021]

Ultimately this one fell flat. I'd seen three or four documentaries on Scientology before this one and had high hopes because I'm familiar with Louie's other work, but it was mostly covering old ground and a good amount of time is spent on reenactments of people's accounts of abuse. There are some interesting things for sure, but overall I felt like the Scientology people put up enough of a smoke-screen to foil Louie.

Answers all your questions about Scientology. Finally.

[TheOneThatYouWanted · 10/10 · 13 October 2016]

Holy sh!t it is good. It is really good. This isn't the first documentary I've seen about Scientology but it maybe the best. Between this one and Going Clear, all your questions about the super secretive organization of Scientology are finally answered. The documentary Going Clear tells you about the history of Scientology but doesn't make you learn about it on a personal level or feel what it is about or why people are willing to not only join but stay in it. At first I thought the film was going to be dumb, they were casting actors to play some of Scientology's key figures but then you quickly learn why.. because they want YOU to feel what it is like to be a part of Scientology. You literally witness what it is like becoming a Scientologist and get to see the emotional roller-coaster of manipulation and feelings. One scene is so visceral for a former Scientologist to witness that he literally could not watch these actors acting out a simple scene. It was crazy but so powerful. I always wondered why people join Scientology and how they keep their members, and now I know. Unlike other documentaries where they tell you about the answers, this documentary shows you the answers. Brilliant.

Comedy or documentary

[born_naughty · 6/10 · 6 June 2016]

Was this a documentary or a comedy? It's a legitimate question, I honestly don't know. I learned absolutely nothing about Scientology, although I did learn a bit about the organization and how shady and elusive the top people within it are. On the other hand the movie was full of awkward, maybe meant to be funny conversations between Loyis Theroux and others. What was the point of the re-enactments if not to entertain the viewer?? It kinda reminds me of Michael Moore. Just like Michael Moore, Theroux only tries to be entertaining and doesn't actually document anything. The things that he does document, I truly don't know how trustworthy this guy is. I was mildly entertained at times but that's not the movie I wanted, what's the point in that?

engaging, interesting and funny, but audiences who will see right through the artifice of its constructions

[CineMuseFilms · 5/10 · 15 September 2016]

The word 'documentary' conveys both the gravitas of truth and the aspiration of a social purpose beyond mere entertainment. So when you see that label on Louis Theroux's My Scientology Movie (2016) you have a right to expect a serious attempt to provide new information about this well- known fringe cult. In reality, however, it is more of a docu-drama comedy that satirises a paranoid organisation by filming its response to Theroux's probing of its dark affairs.

Documentaries are not meant to have pre-conceived plot lines because the good ones are exploratory whereas directors want certainty. So when Theroux is blocked from information about one of the most guarded cults on the planet he simply invents a dramatisation of what access might reveal if it in fact actually occurred. Much of the film is about auditioning for actors to play the cult's arch-demon David Miscavige and celebrity high-priest Tom Cruise. The roles are filled and rehearsals take place under the watchful eye of subversive defector and former Scientology big-wig Mark Rathbun. The film remediates archival footage of Scientology recruitment videos and the rest is classic Michael Moore-style filmmaker provocation. Theroux is the star of his show and he exploits his freedom to say and do what he pleases provided it can be presented as evidence to support his premise, which is that the organisation behind Scientology actively discourages prying eyes. Inordinate attention is drawn to a section of razor wire fence around its compound that has cameras and lights triggered by movement on either side to prove the organisation has something to hide. Yes, Louis, we know.

While it is engaging, interesting and funny, this film miscalculates the sophistication of audiences who will see right through the artifice of its constructions. That does not mean that the film is a failure. It is a genuinely satirical exposé of ridiculously heavy-footed Scientology operatives attempting to intimidate and film the Theroux crew who in turn are filming them. While two cameras pointing at each other is good for a laugh, any claim to serious documentary status is disingenuous. On the other hand, humour and ridicule is a strong weapon for dealing with organisations that have form in the use of terror tactics over their members. In the age of transparency and accountability Scientology will need to get used to its intemperate responses being on the public record, and to that extent only, Theroux's film makes a worthwhile contribution.

Good doco on this cult (so-called 'religion')

[ar_brierley · 8/10 · 19 January 2020]

This is another good Exposé on the cult of scientology. It's sad that people get brainwashed like this. Louis Theroux's very mild 'investigation' caused the paranoid Scientology machine to issue threatening legal letters, to film Louis & his team when he is near their HQ, AND when he's back in his LA studio, to deny them access to public roads, and to call the police on them several times for 'trespassing' (which they were not doing). Definitely not the reactions of a kind & helpful 'church' (yet they are still able to be classified as a 'religious organisation' in most countries and hence retain their TAX- FREE status!). Well done Louis!

Them be crazy, we know

[TwoWardrobes · 6/10 · 5 November 2017]

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.

Going Clear was so much better

[ravioli27 · 3/10 · 5 July 2020]

I didn't really understand the point of spending so much time trying to find the right actors to reenact scenes, and them then spending half of the movie trying to perfect their acting - I get it..but it all felt unnecessary.

Some good moments, but overall dissappointed - Going Clear was a much more insightful doco.

Unsure of itself, Promised more than it delivered.

[Info-340-323067 · 5 August 2017]

WIth the BBC's backing Louis Theroux had an opportunity to explore the Scientology group/religion/cult with some gusto. It seems that this film falls between two stools; it's not a documentary and it's not a film. So what is it?

I don't know.

We have ex members, if that's what you can call them recreating (unpleasant) events that they played a key part in using actors to play the key roles, portraying/recreating Court events and the like.

Why we need to see actors auditioning for parts regurgitating the Scientology leader's words from court papers, is a little perplexing.

This auditioning feature takes up an inordinate amount of time for no gain to the viewer.

We can read the court papers if we wish to, we don't need to see the words reenacted and we certainly don't need to the actor's auditions' for such roles.

I imagine a lot of the planned original footage / comment was not allowed to be shown so the film has been bloated with non entity information, such as auditions rolls.

The film is stuck awkwardly between film and TV Documentary and leaves neither interested party much the wiser.

I imagine that the project started out with good intentions but was stymied by lawyers and we end with a below par film/documentary.

My conclusion, is that the film is definitely watchable, but, don't expect too much.