Reversal of Fortune (2005 TV Movie) User Reviews

Brutally honest

[MartianOctocretr5 · 8/10 · 19 January 2007]

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.

Homeless man "finds" $100k.

[rog-53 · 7/10 · 3 November 2006]

The movie ended too quickly. Even though Ted did not tell the producers how much money he had after 6 months, the producers could have found out and explained: whether he was homeless, still living in his apartment, or living with a relative; whether he had a job, or did he go back to collecting bottles and cans; whether he was still in Sacramento or back in L.A.; what happened to his 18-year-old friend; etc., etc., etc...

I've come in contact with a lot of homeless people in the past few years. Compared to the one's I talked to, Ted seems to be fairly intelligent. I think the producers picked the right person to give the money to. However, I'm not a movie-maker but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that homeless people generally are not motivated, have psychological issues, are drug addicts, or all of the above -- I could have predicted the outcome without going through with the experiment. The money did nothing for this man. It is the same reason why it is bad to blindly hand over money to struggling third-world nations with no guidance.

It is a little sad that the producers put Ted through this purely for our entertainment. I think Ted would have been better off if this movie was never made (he seemed to be happy in the beginning of the movie). If the producers really wanted to help change his life, they could have set up a trust account, where Ted could live off the interest income from the $100k. At 5% it would be about $5k a year for the rest of his life -- which is about the same amount of money he was making collecting cans all day.

a homeless man Ted Rodrig is given 100,000 dollars

[samsg · 8/10 · 4 September 2006]

First of all, i just saw this on showtime recently. This documentary is extremely riveting, and you're always curious about what Ted is doing. In fact, it seems to be that the homeless life is for him as he has no idea about the responsibility that comes with 100,000.

Towards the beginning, it shows Ted as a normal person. He is homeless and it kind of makes you feel awful for treating the homeless the way that people do. In fact, Ted seems to be a decent person with good intentions.

Once Ted receives his $100,000 he conservatively spends his money on small items. However, once he gets the feeling of how much money he is left with after he recklessly spends his money on women, beer, and useless items, he is going to end up where he started, but worse.

Because now, Ted has lost something what he once had. A second chance at a normal life.

The pacing is excellent, and it shows the darker side of Ted once he receives this money. In the end, it makes you realize why he is homeless, and why he'll always be homeless..

Riveting - Excellent

[apfotos · 10/10 · 7 September 2006]

I think this is one of the best documentaries I have ever seen. You always see homeless people, and what an incredible "gift" to give someone - the chance to turn their life around. How many times does that happen? The film makers didn't have a hand in what Ted spent his money on, and they furnished him with people to "help" or "guide" him - which was Ted's choice not to participate in. You cannot give some one money, then "MAKE" them do what you think is best. These people have rights like any other human being, and free choice is one of them. It was interesting to me to see why Ted was homeless - you could tell that he did not WANT to change his situation. He could not live in a society that dictated what he do - so he did nothing.

I applaud the concept and the documentary - I have told many, many people to watch this.. including my son - who needs to see that one needs to think before spending - one needs to look ahead to get ahead.. Ted's problem is that he never wanted to grow up. He had a great opportunity - I would like a re-cap of where Ted is now, and if he would have done anything differently.

I felt for Ted and somehow wish i could know what happened to him next

[lrademacher · 8/10 · 6 September 2006]

this was a really good documentary. this was reality TV. I hate how Ted went through that 6 months, wasting that money. To me it was a blessing and he should of done something more constructive. At the end I wish I could know what happened to Ted. I hope he is well I suspect probably back to being homeless again. I felt for him because the way his mother and sisters wanted nothing to do with him at first. Then when he got the money, and he got in touched with them and he told them about the money they wanted him to be a part of his life again. Its sad that people would use others like that. I am sure for the most part his sisters just wanted to help him out somehow. At least I'd like to think that. It was painful after a bit to see how he'd spend through so much cash in a week, all that drinking, smoking, trying to get laid. Shoot if he wanted to get laid so bad he could of gotten himself a prostitute for lot less than what he spent on the two girlfriends. It was great what he did for that kid Michael. I wish I could know how Michael is now that he has that car. 68 minutes for this documentary is too short. This film project is something that should be a regular thing, like a series. this show was way better than most of the fluff on TV. It showed real people in real life. And I still wish I knew what happened to Ted. Oh well, I guess I can just hope.

Interesting movie

[Beddiewong · 7/10 · 8 September 2006]

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.

Wonderful and Sad

[Michael_Elliott · 29 February 2008]

Reversal of Fortune (2005)

**** (out of 4)

This here's a pretty amazing documentary that I'd probably put on my ten best of the decade so far. The film tells the story of a man named Ted who has been homeless for the past twenty-five years. His family pretty much wants nothing from him, his only friend is an 18-year-old who works at a recycling plant where Ted earns some small cash and he's got a bad drinking problem. The documentary then takes Ted's life into a new direction when the producer's give him $100,000 and then we see what the man decides to do with the money. The idea of giving a homeless man $100,000 is a great little gimmick and it leads to some truly beautiful, funny and heartbreaking scenes as we see Ted for the next six months of his life. I've always said the most beautiful scene in film history was the blind hermit/monster scene from The Bride of Frankenstein but there are a few moments in this film that really challenge that. The reaction of Ted when he learns about the money is priceless as is the scene where he helps out his only friend by buying him his first car. Of course, the story isn't all happy and hopefully we'll get a bigger follow up at some point.

100K man

[mhamila · 8/10 · 19 January 2007]

anyone have any more info on what happened to this guy? he always has the kid in Pasadena to rely on. I don't think his family was all that helpful, just nagging him to get a job etc. This is not a conventional guy, why would he be expected to choose conventional living.

My guess is he sold his truck cheap for drinking and partying money and eventually ends up back in Pasadena. I was sad but funny that his sister was trying to get him into AA.this guy was happier before the cameras got a hold of him, I would not be surprised if he committed suicide after all of this.

I give this documentary an 8/10.

Personal Responsibility is Important!

[savanna-2 · 7/10 · 23 September 2006]

Fascinating to watch, cringe worthy at times, deeply hurtful at others. Makes me wonder, as I'm sure many of you do as well, what finally became of Ted? I was sorry to see that things didn't work out as well as one would hope. Personally, I felt the substance abuse problems, for Ted, made proper decision making impossible, when it came to the the $$$$ and the responsibility of it!

I felt that, while the the film makers did make clear that Ted had a problem with alcohol and pot, they only used it to sensationalize the tale. Putrid, if you as me. But hey, they went lower and I do mean scrapping the bottom low, by including footage where Ted told private details of this mothers life and at one point called her a "bar whore." Now, if this were serialized, then yes, I can see how that would be included in the same series as the part where they go and ultimately do the bulk of their filming in and around the home of Ted's mother.

They befriended her, his family, sisters, etc. Then, turned around and used that footage which was shot while Ted was still estranged from his them. How could they do that? There were certainly other ways for the point to be made about Ted's moms struggles with alcohol!!! This stuff was all edited together for one feature documentary so those scenes and voice clips could have just as easily hit the cutting room floor. Maybe the creator's, producers, the whoever's involved in this, were disappointed that Ted's family was very nice to him and didn't start to immediately hit him up for cash and while they tried to give him sensible advice, there were no outrageous blow-ups when squandered the money on expensive cars (he bought 3 total and gave 2 away), drinking, wining and dining women.

So maybe that's it ... they were expecting the Jerry Springer show and got a nice middle-class family instead! Maybe they're hoping after the family sees the documentary and hears these hateful comments, the family will call up and offer to give them a show "Jerry Springer" style! Naw, that won't happen, but what is certain, is that there is an entire family out there hurt because they participated in this! I wish the family the best and hope the the person who decided to include that footage is now sleeping under a bridge in LA and his Mama is not accepting his collect phone calls! Yes, Ted blew the money, lack of personal responsibility, but he's not the only one lacking in this crowd!

No Surprise, Just Very Sad

[jurisdoctorjsc · 10/10 · 14 January 2007]

The only thing wrong with this documentary is that is didn't follow Ted around a little bit longer. If it would have, I am almost certain he would have ended up back on the streets.

It's like he really didn't believe he deserved the money, and he could not cope with the responsibilities of it. He needed a great deal of guidance and therapy.

It was certainly nice of him to buy his friend a car, but he could have just as easily given him $5,000.00 and said, "Go buy a car." Instead of taking on the entire $11K ...BUT WHEN HE PURCHASED HIS OWN $35,000.00 vehicle, I KNEW then it as all over. I thought, there Ted goes-- back to life under the bridge.

Saddest part was his sisters seemed so willing to help without wanting any thing from him, but he kept accusing them-- saying "Everybody wants something from me." Dumbo...your sisters only wanted you to succeed. And, this 100K, was the beginning of what could have been a life changing event, instead of a six month party, carefree, I'll spend what I want, when I want, type of sad experience.

What a shame. Truly.

Best documentary ever

[dtcherer · 10/10 · 23 January 2007]

I'm fond of watching documentaries, so this triumph of a film has remarkably resonated with me in an extraordinary way. This is a segment of life all around us that is so very unknown (the homeless), laid bare before us as never before. Congratulations to Demaio for this ingenious accomplishment! The sad story takes us down a plot never witnessed in any Hollywood screenplay, yet grabs your soul till the very end. Man against himself - the ultimate test! What separates any of us from homelessness can be found in the lessons portrayed. Nature, nurture, good, bad, ugly,... its all there.

Without narrative, the unprodded course this man takes will answer a few more of life's biggest questions.

Incredibly Irresponsible Social Experiment

[sinomafile · 2/10 · 5 September 2006]

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.

Who Produced This?

[voluptas · 1/10 · 20 January 2007]

What happens when you give a free man just enough money to trap him into the rat race and watch him squirm? Homeless people answer to no one. They have no mortgages, rent payments or idiot bosses. Homeless people don't have to worry about the IRS or performance reviews or credit card payments. But, give them just enough money to rent an apartment and buy a car and, suddenly, they have to worry about entering the rat race, buying gas for transportation, paying insurance on their car, and working for someone else. They get a chance to be a "productive citizens." This film was about as exploitive as a film can be. It's a way for the rich and middle-class sheeple to say "see what happens when you try to help the poor?" and it vindicates capitalistic arrogance.

Why not a film that asks, "What happens when you take away everything a rich man has?"

Crass, cowardly, and ultimately cruel

[Knuckle · 2/10 · 16 October 2006]

"What happens when you give a homeless man $100,000?" As if by asking that question they are somehow morally absolved of what is eventually going to happen. The creators of "Reversal of Fortune" try to get their voyeuristic giggles while disguising their antics as some kind of responsible social experiment.

They take Ted, a homeless man in Pasadena, and give him $100,000 to see if he will turn his life around. Then, with only the most cursory guidance and counseling, they let him go on his merry way.

What are they trying to say? "Money can't buy you happiness?" "The homeless are homeless because they deserve to be?" Or how about, "Lift a man up - it's more fun to watch him fall from a greater altitude." They took a man with nothing to lose, gave him something to lose, and then watched him dump it all down the drain. That's supposed to be entertainment? They dress this sow up with some gloomy music and dramatic camera shots, but in the end it has all the moral high ground of car crash videos - only this time they engineered the car crashes and asked, "What happens when you take down a stop sign?"

Cameras follow the decisions of a homeless man who is given $100,000

[kenmarra58 · 6 December 2006]

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.

I've been homeless before

[tonybigcharles · 3/10 · 1 November 2007]

as always this is an inaccurate picture of the homeless. TV told a lot of lies about panhandlers in the early 1990s and made everyone look bad, and claimed we all made over $100 a day when $20-40 a day was much closer to reality. when someone drove by where i held up a sign offering to work, and offered me work, i actually went and took the work if i was physically able.and if i would been offered the $100,000 id damned sure invested in in apt prepaid for at least 2 years, and kept most in the bank and still left myself $10-20000 for NL $1-2 and $2-5 cash games at the casinos. i usually always win and could win decent if i just had a bankroll. instead i win about $1000 a month is all playing in always minimum buying in due to not wanting to risk losing it all. i was only homeless cause i didn't wanna risk spending all my money and going broke, sometimes i had over $1000-2000 in my sock while i slept outside. anyone wanting to talk contact sevencard2003 on yahoo messenger.i admit i was different than most homeless people though, due to the fact i never drank smoke or took drugs. im no longer homeless, am now in govt housing for $177 a month and getting SSI and spend most of my time winning at online poker. mom and sunflower diversified worked hard to get me SSI. glad my days of hiding in under the stage in the convention center of the casino at night sleeping, worrying about getting caught by security are finally over. had this TV crew picked me theyd been over a lot sooner. its a shame how they don't better select who they pick.

What a waste

[manyblessings916 · 18 February 2008]

I personally had interaction with Ted in his South Sacramento apartment, he drinks obsessively and uses drugs, I know because I did it with him. Some of his family members used drugs and drank to craziness with him. If they really wanted to do a social experiment, why not screen their subjects better? This was a pointless project and Ted and his friends and family got to party to no ends off of Showtime. Next time they want to do something stupid like this they can call me. I can party with their money just as good as Ted did. There are homeless drunks on every corner in America. I cannot figure out what this documentary was trying to prove, except maybe that the producer of this show is an idiot. Ted's addictions were well into severe progression before he got this money, he told me so. Maybe he cleaned up for three days if they actually tested him for drugs or alcohol. Ted is a player and street wise, I'm sure he knows it is not hard to get around a drug test, hell I did it for parole for years. I think Showtime used and exploited Ted and should be shamed for their irrational actions. Ted had a part in this too, he is simply lost in his addiction and his personal demons, especially being co-dependent with his family and women.