everything you have heard about this movie is true.

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.

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

This is a difficult watch, but an honest depiction of its premise. The theme is to gift a homeless man with a $100,000 windfall, and then watch as a spectator what the man does with this sudden good fortune. The movie is told in a documentary form, with frequent side-bar interview commentary by the subject of the study, Ted, and the people he interacts with. The film teeters on the brink of exploitation, as it occasionally resembles a reality show, but still manages to give a brutally honest picture.Ted is presented to you in the early going, and his story is not a pretty picture. He laments over failed opportunities, blames others for his predicament (especially women), and lives in semi-isolation. He stores what few belongings he has in a hole underneath a freeway viaduct, and peddles around on a bicycle collecting recyclables for redemption. He smokes and drinks. And that's about it. After meeting Ted, it's hard to be anything but pessimistic about what lies ahead for him. It's obvious he despises conventional wisdom and any form of accountability from others. He rejects counsel on how to utilize the money, and throws his bank rolls around in endless partying and large purchases. It must have been difficult for the movie makers to resist the temptation of intervening in Ted's actions.It's sad, and it's hard to watch. Whether Ted is indicative of the majority of homeless people is a matter for introspection and discussion. Everyone will have a different view on this matter, but the film's point is to get the subject on the table, since society tends to just accept this social problem as unbeatable (and it may even be so; that is a matter to ponder, as well).This thought provoking film is recommended.

I thought this film was fascinating, quite frankly. It took me through a whole range of emotions in barely over an hour. At first I felt very sympathetic for Ted, as he seems to be making the best out of a crummy situation (recycling, etc..). I then felt a nervous excitement for Ted when he finds the money. After he buys his friend a car, and explains to the hooker the importance of giving, I felt a genuine sense of respect for him. After this comes just complete, outright nervousness and concern. I find myself actually talking to him through the TV, trying to reason with him. Towards the end I actually hit a point where I was just plain angry with him and his rash decisions. Finally, I ended up completely bewildered by what I had just witnessed. Had this really happened? Had he really just cruised through $100K in 6 months, after living off of $25 a day for 20 years? In retrospect, the emotion I feel most for Ted is my original feeling - sympathy. Ted didn't stand a chance. He had no concept of the value of money, and nobody in his life he could trust to manage it. While many claim that the producers of the film should be ashamed of making this film, knowing he didn't have a chance to turn his life around, I would disagree. There was no telling what this man would do. As I can recall, this experiment has never been documented before. I truthfully was unsure how this money would affect Ted. Also, a viewer would be naive to translate the results to represent a broad view of how instant wealth would be handled by a homeless person. It is clear that this situation would differ from one person to the next. As for this situation with Ted...fascinating story and great theater.

This documentary posed a lot of questions about the situation of the homeless. This might sound strange but the documentary showed how the money didn't matter. The 100,000 did not help this man. He had addiction problems with alcohol and cigarettes. And major problems with authority or any type of organization. He changed when he finally realized he had $100,000. But it was not a change for the better. The problems he carried only became greater than ever with the money.I thought it was helpful the man was given the opportunity to meet with professionals in regards to his money. They gave him great advice but he did not want it. He felt like everyone was telling him what to do. Pushing more experts at him would not have helped. If he didn't want to listen, he wasn't going to. He would not even listen to his own family! This isn't a bad documentary. He comes across the money like a chance encounter. This isn't too far from experiencing good luck. However, it is staged. That's where ethics come into play.As far as ethics, I am on the fence. It was a riveting documentary, an experiment, and train wreck in progress. It appealed to our curiosity. On the other hand, the filmmakers were sneaky with their approach. You can see how he thinks its just a documentary on his life, then everything changes when he receives the money, and from there--its all downhill. I don't know if its ethical because reality TV does the same thing. We watch shows that exploit peoples' abilities (American Idol), lifestyles (The Real World), and emotions (Survivor). They exploit people, it's cheaper than paying writers and building set, and we depend on contestants to fill in story lines. We watch people sign up to put themselves out there for all to see. They may sign bad contracts, get their 15 minutes of stardom, and when its over, we move on to the next season. Only if they are lucky and smart, do they survive and land roles on other shows---none of which are bigger than the show they went on first.Overall, I find this documentary interesting. I think you can get a lot out of it. I would like to know if the man returned to his old lifestyle. I think it was a gutsy film and I liked it.

This film is "riveting" but in much the same way a car crash is riveting. It's hard to look away. Overall, this film is nothing more than an incredibly irresponsible social experiment--and a futile, biased experiment at that. The filmmakers are manipulative and seem to have no problems going for the lowest possible denominator. The manner in which the money is presented to Ted is pure exploitation. The intervening steps that the filmmakers force Ted to participate in (meeting with so-called experts) were empty and devoid of any substantive attempt to connect with Ted. Instead, it's painfully obvious that they serve to cover the filmmaker's posteriors and to further exploit Ted's situation. The worst part is that the filmmakers stop following Ted after 6 months; and seemingly are cut off entirely from the subject they had followed so closely months before. If they had cared, they would have found better "experts" to help Ted. If they truly wanted to see what Ted would do, then they should have let him spend the money without any intervention. This film is at best a high-brow Jackass stunt and not a documentary. It's sad to think how much $100,000 could have actually changed a homeless person's life had it been put in the right hands.