Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Blistering performances.

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.

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?

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.

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.