Reversal of Fortune

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.