My Scientology Movie (2016)

Touches You

Good concept, poorly executed.

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

This has got to be one of the most disappointing movies I've seen and when it was over my mouth was literally agape at just how bad it was. I should preface this by saying that I am an absolute HUGE fan of Louis and my disappointment was amplified because I was hoping (expecting) to see something on par with his previous work. The film is stilted, disjointed, and feels poorly thought out. The lack of any real new material forces the crew to constantly cut back to the half-baked casting calls and 're- enactments' which never make sense and don't serve much, if any, purpose. The crew seem to set out with no real goal but to create a studio version of Scientology for Louis to take part in. That never comes to fruition, which is a good thing because it was a terrible idea in the first place and a horribly weak cornerstone to place the framing of the film on. Normally I find Louis' mode of interviewing very interesting- his characteristic long pauses and 'innocent' way of questioning his subjects through absolute frankness makes for surprisingly revealing answers, but here it just feels deliberately insulting. At one point in the film, a major player and ex-Scientologist is harassed by some members and is visually upset. Instead of using this to push the ex-Scientologist to another level, Louis instead decides to needle him some more with a not completely unnecessary but unbelievably poorly timed question.Pointless and disappointing are two words that immediately came to mind after finishing this film. Right near the end, the ex-Scientologist that was harassed insinuates that the gloves are coming off; I finally got excited, expecting some big revelations from this man, only to have the credits roll. This film set out with no goal and ends exactly that way- accomplishing nothing.

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.

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.

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.