Very well executed

Boring, over-political, tech fuzed mess

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

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?

This movie was not too shabby. I like how they call out the church of Scientology for not joining the documentary and also, for calling out the violence the church of Scientology is known for. I like how they call out religion for charging for everything and how much money you can end up spending. And using the primitive e meter machine that used to be a lie detector test. I completed their Scientology stress tests and noticed how money hungry these guys were for me to buy their book by L Ron Hubbard. Religion is clearly a problem and one thing about this movie that was incorrect was saying that Scientologists do not have a god even though they believe in an overlord named Xenu that sent us humans to Earth. Which is a completely ridiculous story. When we jump back to the money hunger I think needed to have spent more time on the fact that to be a top Scientologist member you would have to drop as high of two million dollars. One thing I noticed about religions in these documentaries is that they always follow you around in a suspicious car to see what you're doing. It was also terrifying to hear that many people have had worse experiences for trying to liberate themselves. Also, the verbal abuse and verbal insults show how religion is a very strong case of brainwashing. This movie was insanely terrifying to see the religious act like this over another load of crap religion. I do think the way it ended was crap.

I have always found the subject matters of Louis documentaries to be fascinating, but his interview "technique" seems to be standing silently looking rather puzzled & having nothing insightful to ask or say. This documentary is probably his finest example of that technique. Despite having unfiltered & unrestricted access to one of the most interesting & high ranking ex members of this destructive cult, Louis failed to ask even one interesting or revealing question. He only succeeds in upsetting & compromising his subject, with his complete lack of intelligence or understanding. The entire film revolves around trying to produce an "improvised" scene that only might have happened, & the only location scouted was an access road to the back of Gold Studios. Considering the access Louis had to such high ranking Ex members & his undoubted knowledge on the subject (just listen to his interview on the Joe Rogan podcast to understand the in depth research he has completed on the subject), the entire film fails to either make any revelations, or give us any insight into this insidious cult, that we don't already know. So... disappointing & vacuous...no surprise there then.

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.