IMDb-BEWERTUNG
7,1/10
38.362
IHRE BEWERTUNG
Die Geschichte eines jungen Journalisten, der in Ungnade fiel, als entdeckt wurde, dass er über die Hälfte seiner Artikel aus der Zeitschrift The New Republic fabriziert hatte.Die Geschichte eines jungen Journalisten, der in Ungnade fiel, als entdeckt wurde, dass er über die Hälfte seiner Artikel aus der Zeitschrift The New Republic fabriziert hatte.Die Geschichte eines jungen Journalisten, der in Ungnade fiel, als entdeckt wurde, dass er über die Hälfte seiner Artikel aus der Zeitschrift The New Republic fabriziert hatte.
- Auszeichnungen
- 11 Gewinne & 28 Nominierungen insgesamt
Owen Roth
- Ian Restil
- (as Owen Rotharmel)
Handlung
WUSSTEST DU SCHON:
- WissenswertesMany members of the test audience didn't believe the story was true. They thought no real-life magazine would have so many journalists in their early to mid 20s, even though the New Republic did. A place card added to the opening of the film stated that the median age of journalists working for the New Republic was 26.
- PatzerAt 47:59 there is an overlay on the screen saying it is May 8, 1998, and lane is going in to discuss the fallout from the article Hack Heaven. But the article had been published May 18th, 1998.
- Zitate
Stephen Glass: [Outside the closed restaurant] I didn't do anything wrong, Chuck.
Chuck Lane: I really wish you'd stop saying that.
- Alternative VersionenThere are three versions available, of different lengths. Runtimes are: "1h 34m (94 min)", the most available, theatrical cut, "1h 29m (89 min) (Australia)" and "1h 39m (99 min) (Toronto International) (Canada)" film festival original cut.
- SoundtracksWild Thing
Written by Chip Taylor
Performed by X
Used by permission of EMI Blackwood Music Inc.
Courtesy of Elektra Entertainment Group
By Arrangement with Warner Strategic Marketing
Ausgewählte Rezension
The New Republic is one of many political comment magazines published out of Washington DC. The writing/editing staff is small and young and includes the humble and friendly Stephen Glass. His stories are often very interesting and outrageous and he starts to attract attention from other magazines for contributions. When writes about an on-line hacker who attacked the website of a large software company he attracts the attention of an internet-based journal and writer Adam Penenberg who gets attacked by his editor for missing the story. However, as Penenberg starts to look at the facts behind the story he starts to suspect that the story is one large fabrication.
I only vaguely remember the original breaking of this story and am not aware of the full facts behind the story but I was interested enough to go and see this film when it was released at the weekend. The film opens with Glass giving a talk to a class back at his old school where he learnt his trade, this is then used as a tool to give background on both him and the job he does. This works pretty well even if it is a little confusing as to when it is happening (a fact not understood until the end). The main thrust of the film is the gradual exposure of the lies that Glass has been perpetrated within his stories. In this regard it works pretty well as a drama with a good story made all the more interesting and engaging by being true. It never really ignites into being a thriller and it misses a few opportunities to really be gripping but it still performs well as a good solid film perhaps it was a decision not to stick in more shouting or acting fireworks, it was the right decision but I'm sure some audiences will expect shouting and fireworks.
The one moment I did feel that the film missed out was where Chuck picks several editions off the shelf and starts to realize the extent of the lies that they have been publishing: that scene wasn't dramatic and it wasn't convincing, that should have been a lot more dramatic but this is only one scene in the whole film. Like I said, some people will find this film a bit slow and lacking in pace but for me it was the story that drove the film as opposed to theatrical tricks. The cast help the film a great deal, even if many of them are barely more than cameos. Christensen's performance worried me at the start because it seemed to be a bit cheesy but after 15 minutes I realized that this was the point. His Glass is manipulative and deceitful to the point where it is an act that he delivers naturally it was a difficult character to do and, despite him not being showy, he gets it bang on and he delivers the same character throughout while just allowing the audience's perception of him to change. Sarsgaard actually turns out to have the lion's share of the film and he gets the showiest moments of shouting he is good and acts as our eyes. Sevingy is a real good actress and does well with her few scenes. The rest of the cast is well padded with famous faces who all deliver well with the little they have. Azaria is good and is given a good character (who died in real life covering the war in Iraq), Zahn manages to not be an annoying pr*ck a feat in itself, but Dawson's presence was a mystery to me. She has very little to do other that be pretty and show the pressure in her job, but he is barely more than a cameo.
Overall this film lacks fireworks and bases it's slow pace on the facts of the true story and not hammy acting or directing flourishes. In this regard the film is enjoyable if a little slow. It squanders a few changes to make more of an impact but generally it delivers a true story in a manner that is straight but well told. A great cast aren't all used well but are good where it matters while also adding depth. Not the film that Saturday night crowds will be hoping for but a good story well told nonetheless.
I only vaguely remember the original breaking of this story and am not aware of the full facts behind the story but I was interested enough to go and see this film when it was released at the weekend. The film opens with Glass giving a talk to a class back at his old school where he learnt his trade, this is then used as a tool to give background on both him and the job he does. This works pretty well even if it is a little confusing as to when it is happening (a fact not understood until the end). The main thrust of the film is the gradual exposure of the lies that Glass has been perpetrated within his stories. In this regard it works pretty well as a drama with a good story made all the more interesting and engaging by being true. It never really ignites into being a thriller and it misses a few opportunities to really be gripping but it still performs well as a good solid film perhaps it was a decision not to stick in more shouting or acting fireworks, it was the right decision but I'm sure some audiences will expect shouting and fireworks.
The one moment I did feel that the film missed out was where Chuck picks several editions off the shelf and starts to realize the extent of the lies that they have been publishing: that scene wasn't dramatic and it wasn't convincing, that should have been a lot more dramatic but this is only one scene in the whole film. Like I said, some people will find this film a bit slow and lacking in pace but for me it was the story that drove the film as opposed to theatrical tricks. The cast help the film a great deal, even if many of them are barely more than cameos. Christensen's performance worried me at the start because it seemed to be a bit cheesy but after 15 minutes I realized that this was the point. His Glass is manipulative and deceitful to the point where it is an act that he delivers naturally it was a difficult character to do and, despite him not being showy, he gets it bang on and he delivers the same character throughout while just allowing the audience's perception of him to change. Sarsgaard actually turns out to have the lion's share of the film and he gets the showiest moments of shouting he is good and acts as our eyes. Sevingy is a real good actress and does well with her few scenes. The rest of the cast is well padded with famous faces who all deliver well with the little they have. Azaria is good and is given a good character (who died in real life covering the war in Iraq), Zahn manages to not be an annoying pr*ck a feat in itself, but Dawson's presence was a mystery to me. She has very little to do other that be pretty and show the pressure in her job, but he is barely more than a cameo.
Overall this film lacks fireworks and bases it's slow pace on the facts of the true story and not hammy acting or directing flourishes. In this regard the film is enjoyable if a little slow. It squanders a few changes to make more of an impact but generally it delivers a true story in a manner that is straight but well told. A great cast aren't all used well but are good where it matters while also adding depth. Not the film that Saturday night crowds will be hoping for but a good story well told nonetheless.
- bob the moo
- 15. Mai 2004
- Permalink
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
Details
- Erscheinungsdatum
- Herkunftsländer
- Sprache
- Auch bekannt als
- Lüge und Wahrheit - Shattered Glass
- Drehorte
- Produktionsfirmen
- Weitere beteiligte Unternehmen bei IMDbPro anzeigen
Box Office
- Budget
- 6.000.000 $ (geschätzt)
- Bruttoertrag in den USA und Kanada
- 2.220.008 $
- Eröffnungswochenende in den USA und in Kanada
- 77.540 $
- 2. Nov. 2003
- Weltweiter Bruttoertrag
- 2.944.752 $
- Laufzeit1 Stunde 34 Minuten
- Farbe
- Sound-Mix
- Seitenverhältnis
- 2.35 : 1
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen
Oberste Lücke
By what name was Shattered Glass (2003) officially released in India in English?
Antwort