AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

Catangro After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Jonah Abbott There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

chex13 The definition of a guru being 'darkness into light' i.e. realisation of a truth should have given Vikram some pause for thought. His quest to spread a message that he believes to be true made him real guru, not a false one. The fact that he decided to be a guru seems to be his rationale behind being false, which makes no sense. The only way he would have been a false guru is if he had intentionally misled people, which he didn't. Indeed he connected better with people as Kumare than as Vikram.The entire premise defeats his own message. The fact that these people needed someone to tell them that they should be their own guru requires a guru for the message to be delivered. It is the same message as Buddhism, Sikhism and probably other eastern traditions. The only thing he demonstrated was the difference between a real guru and a false one. Ironically he was one of the real ones with a true message, once again, defeating his own aim. Something he didn't seem to realise at any point.

adventurer_ci I did not know what to expect from this documentary. Just like many I am in search of the meaning of our being and have been exploring many avenues. I have an open mind about things and do not blindly reject everything that I do not understand, see or feel. I am very skeptical of self-proclaimed gurus though. My only experience with a "guru" was a paid session with a so called "shaman" from Brazil. She is traveling in US, teaching and giving private session. She was recommended by many and has a well designed website. In my opinion she is fake and I just threw away my money away. No one to blame though. Anyway, back to the movie. I shows how easily we believe in what we want to believe, how easily we surrender our own power. Is it unethical to exploit people for a documentary? No more than they are already exploited by other fake gurus. Having said that I would not want to be one of them and appear in the documentary without my contest, even though they all were treated with respect.

Sharon C Thought I would add my own take on this movie since reviews are scattered. I understand the ethical dilemma with making a film like this, but I think the lesson learned far outweighs the negative impact of having participated in the movie.I thoroughly enjoyed watching this unfold. Someone faulted Vikram for not making the ruse feel planned enough- but I don't. I think the true sociopaths and manipulators of society probably have a naturally aggressive, charismatic drive which helps them exploit people, but I think that its probably normal for a genuinely good person to have to feel their way into an experiment like this and sort of be guided by the reactions and responses they receive. I felt that it added honesty to the experiment. Psychologists have conducted experiments on unknowing subjects to learn about a variety of topics- like how easy it is to get a person to torture another just because they are told to do so- the person believed they were inflicting pain on the "actor". Some stood their ground and refused to inflict pain, but others- well, they went along with it even though they were instructed to deliver more intense (but fake) electric shocks to some victim they could hear screaming. They were not told until after the experiment that the shocks were fake and the victim was an actor. To me, this movie is no different- it is another psychological experiment that I found fascinating.I never really got the sense that the followers were being mocked. I felt like all along he was admitting that the power to change was right inside of themselves but the followers own longing and need to find a "magic key" to unlock that power kept them in denial even when "Kumare" would be honest and frank about it with them- he even came right out and said "I am so fake I forget who I am sometimes" and this did not rattle the follower. I would have asked, "What do you mean?" But the fact that no one asked means they really didn't want to know. He never said that they needed him- all along he kept pointing them to their own selves. But people preferred believing, and maybe even needing, someone else to save them. And I felt that this was intended to be part of the learning experience of this movie and not a mockery. This is the entire psychological lesson gained from the test. The entire premise is about the ease of which you can lure people into a cult, or any religion for that matter. I certainly contemplated Jesus- another long haired, bearded philosopher who was a great speaker and could hold a crowd's attention. Jesus may have even fully believed everything he said. The entire population was awaiting a messiah, and many before him believed they were the awaited messiah- there were false alarms all the time. Jesus was a good speaker and he gained momentum and a following. He spoke messages that seemed directly opposite to the tone and direction of the Old Testament. Jesus taught love and forgiveness but he did not need to be crucified for people to learn to love and forgive other people. He only needed to be crucified so God himself would forgive people. All along, from the beginning, people could have been taught to love one another and forgive, but the Old Testament ordered punishment and death penalty to rule breakers- and those rule breakers were members of their own community:family, friends, and neighbors they knew all their lives. This tells me Jesus was not in alignment with the Old Testament. Jesus appears to be a guru with new age lessons for a people who were ordered to lack empathy for one another previously. The pressure and ethical dilemma began to build on Vikram because he bonded with the followers and became emotionally attached and I felt this added to the movie. I don't think this movie was made for the purpose of making money. I think the purpose was truly to explore the nature of people.

cnnmv In 2008 I saw a movie that completely changed the way I thought about Spiritual Enlightenment and Inner Happiness... That movie was called "The Love Guru".Mike Myers character of "Guru Maurice Pitka" was both thought provoking and entertaining, two defining traits which unfortunately Vikram Gandhi's character "Kumare" lacked. At some points in the movie I was so appalled by Vikrams acting that I wondered if he was so desperate for valuable minutes of screen time that he intentionally left in scenes where he clearly falls out of character. There are countless moments when his American accent comes through or a slight western-ism slips out, and considering this was edited down from (I'm assuming) hundreds of hours of footage I find it hard to believe they weren't completely aware of his character from the beginning. ... I know this doesn't change the overall basis of the movie, I just personally found it hard to sit through doubting that all the characters were believers. The whole thing looks and feels like an episode of "The Hills" complete with tacky poolside one-on-one confessionals and bad acting.The only reason I ended up sitting through this was for "THE REVEAL" which eventually (and keeping in theme with the movie) fell flat and lifeless. At least in "There's Something About Miriam" someone broke down crying.The idea behind this movie is brilliant, it just needed a different formula in order to reach it's full potential.I guess you might enjoy it if you're a mid-thirties Californian house wife desperately searching for some religious understanding in your life, yet unsure which spiritual path to take.