Reversal of Fortune

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.

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.

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.