User reviews

The public-at-large loves a good scandal, and in 1998, the scandal involving Stephen Glass was a pretty darn good one. It turned out that Glass, a young prodigy who was writing for several magazines, but primarily for the prestigious 'New Republic' ('the in-flight magazine of Air Force One') had fabricated some or all of 21 of his 41 well-received stories; a scandal that rocked the journalism world and was picked up by the general public and was later repeated with Jayson Blair.

'Shattered Glass', co-written and directed by Billy Ray examines this true-life story, with Hayden Christensen playing Glass and Peter Sarsgaard as his editor, Chuck Lane. I have never seen Christensen's work in anything else until this point, and I was impressed by his acting chops. He was able to handily express Glass's desperate need for acceptance and his compulsive and repulsively cunning nature so well that the viewer, when faced with the dilemma of how to feel about this man, can only watch numbly as the train wreck that becomes his life careens further out of control. Sarsgaard, as usual, is fantastic as the fair and decent-minded Lane, the editor who first tries to help and protect Glass, but then, after digging deeper, finds that there is a lot more to the man than sloppy journalism.

It is actually surprising to me that 'Shattered Glass' became a film. I remember reading a Vanity Fair piece on Glass back when the scandal broke, and that, and the myriad other articles seemed to be sufficient exposure. The fact that 'Shattered Glass' was released five years after the scandal settled down, and that it is a compelling screenplay and film is a testimony to Ray's (a first time director) talent. 'Shattered Glass' is gut-wrenching in that it is difficult to watch because the viewer knows how deep Glass digs himself, and it's not necessarily fun to watch. 'Shattered Glass' is an intelligent, well-done film and I would definitely recommend it to anyone who appreciates that a film doesn't have to be showy in order to make an impact.

--Shel

...Although Im not sure anyone else would enjoy this. I am on my school's newspaper, and we watched this in my journalism class. I thought it was...pretty decent. This movie doesn't have anything found in a typical Hollywood movie, however. There is no violence, there is nothing sexual, and the biggest thing at stake is a job. The characters are never in any physical danger. A movie centering on journalists that would have a much bigger mass appeal is Russel Crowe's State of Play. I think this was also a better written movie.

Still, Shattered Glass is interesting. The story is actually a true one, based on the controversy around a reporter, Stephen Glass, who made up stories and published them in national newspapers. The pace can drag on at times, but that's to be expected, again, because of the complete absence of many Hollywood tent poles.

As far as casting goes, I really enjoyed Peter Sarsgaard in this, but I continue to wonder why Hayden Christensen has ever been cast in movies. All I can say for him is that he isn't as atrocious here as he is many other films. And the story about how bad a journalist really can screw up was interesting, interesting enough to cover Christensen's mediocre performance.

The film is also fairly surrealistic. It is a very psychologically oriented film. This is not to excess, but Glass is not always "present" in his actual life, as he resides in his idealized fantasy. Some of these sequences can add an air of confusion to the atmosphere. There were certain points that left me wondering "What just happened?"

Shattered Glass, just based on it's concept never had even the slightest potential to become a Hollywood blockbuster. This was still a decent, if flawed movie. In the hands of a more capable director, with a better lead actor, though, it still could have been much better. As soon as it ended, I was left with a feeling of slight confusion. After several more minutes of deep reflection I was able to ascertain what had happened. And while I was completely disappointed with the film as a whole, it still left me somewhat underwhelmed.

One of the unsung and unheralded movie treasures of 2003, 'Shattered Glass' tells the fascinating story of Stephen Glass, one of the top reporters for The New Republic in the 1990's, who rocked the media world when he had to finally confess that he had fabricated many of his stories. 'Shattered Glass' plays like a modern Greek tragedy, centered on a man of great talent and potential brought down by his own internal weaknesses. Glass was only 24 when he fell from grace; prior to that, he was a hot shot reporter who, in the highly competitive world of high stakes journalism, kept looking for that little added edge to make his stories saleable. For a number of years, Glass managed to slip those stories past his editors and fact-checkers without being discovered. However, in the spring of 1998, his world came crashing down around him after an internet magazine became suspicious of a story he had written about a computer hacker who, it turns out, never actually existed.

'Shattered Glass,' which is based on an article by Buzz Bissinger, succeeds as both a complex character study and a top notch thriller. The film never gives us any easy answers as to just why Glass put his journalistic integrity and career on the line by perpetrating these frauds. As portrayed in the film, Glass is a paradoxical mixture of both arrogance and insecurity, a smooth manipulator who can charm and sweet talk his way into getting people to like and trust him while at the same time employing those same skills to get himself out of tough situations. Eventually, however, the act runs out of steam and he is exposed for who and what he really is. Yet, who, indeed, is he? Is Glass simply a pathological liar? Is he a stressed-out, overworked 'kid' trying desperately to keep his head above water in the cutthroat world of professional journalism? Is he merely a smooth-talking, unethical charmer who knows what he wants and will stop at nothing to get it? Could it be that he is some or all of these things at the same time? The fact that the film never fully answers these questions is what pulls us so deeply into the drama. Moreover, Hayden Christensen gives a superb performance as Glass, making the character both smarmy and vulnerable, repellant and sympathetic all at the same time. In addition to Christensen, the film is filled with brilliant, subtle performances by Peter Sarsgaard, Chloe Sevigny, Hank Azaria and many others.

Superbly written and directed by Billy Ray, 'Shattered Glass' is one of the most suspenseful films of recent times, far more gripping than most so-called thrillers because the film is dealing with real-world issues of integrity and ethics. We watch with morbid fascination the slow unraveling of a man's 'crime' and character, as Glass becomes more and more ensnared in a web of his own making. The step-by-step process by which a promising young man's true nature is uncovered, then his reputation destroyed, becomes the stuff of classic tragedy.

Although The New Republic eventually recovered from this debacle, the filmmakers do not let the magazine off the hook quite so easily. The thing we are most struck by is how incredibly young the reporters at the magazine were at the time (we are told their average age was 26!). How such unseasoned writers came to play so prominent a part in so major and venerable a publication is indeed one of the great mysteries of the story - and one of the sharpest indictments leveled against the magazine by the makers of the film.

'Shattered Glass' is an ineffably sad film, one that makes us mourn the loss of a promising, talented individual who sowed the seeds of his own destruction (he is currently a lawyer). Yet it also inspires and uplifts us by reminding us that men of integrity will almost always triumph over men of little or no integrity in the long run. That's a truism worth remembering in this time of great moral confusion in which we find ourselves living. 'Shattered Glass' is not to be missed.

I still don't know what to really think of this movie. On the one side it's a really made movie, that got well directed and features some fine performances from its actors. But on the other hand it just isn't the most interesting movie ever made because it lacked a certain depth for me. For instance this movie doesn't really explain the things why Stephen Glass did the things he did. We just never get to know what makes him tick and therefore this movie as a character study and character movie (which this movie obviously is) just isn't effective enough.

The movie is perhaps a bit too self aware and ambitious. The movie feels to self righteous at times. It was like the movie had a story and they knew in advance how they wanted the movie to end but somewhat forgot to build up effectively to it and the way the story progresses instead feels very obligatory and also predictable. Basically when you're being objective you'll also notice that the first and the last halve of the movie don't really connect that well and feel quite different from each other. As a matter of fact, halve way through the movie I actually wondered to myself what the point of the first halve of the movie exactly was for the story, since the story really started to take off halve way through.

But no it's not a horrible movie or one that I hated watching, it got too well made for that. Billy Ray is a director with potential but he's more a person who gives more priority to his writing. He wrote a couple of screenplays for some big and successful Hollywood production. He's currently working on the screenplay for the "Westworld" remake.

But what also made this movie such a fine watch was its acting. The foremost reason why this movie didn't became a real box-office success or the reason why this movie isn't really that well known is because Hayden Christensen is playing the main lead. He got criticized a lot for his acting in the new Star Wars movies and he made this movie between "Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones" and "Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith". Therefor most people just weren't interest in this movie but in all fairness he is perfectly cast in this movie and plays his role really well. He plays a reporter who is lying to his teeth during the entire movie and he does this very convincing. In the sequences you can tell when he is lying but at the same time you can also somewhat understand why his colleagues still simply believe him and take for granted what he is saying. A great accomplishment from Christensen. But who also deserves credit is Peter Sarsgaard, who perhaps plays the best role out of the movie. Other fine actors such as Chloë Sevigny, Rosario Dawson and Hank Azaria also appear in this movie but I don't know, I just don't feel that there parts are important enough within the movie to really leave an impression.

It's a fine enough watchable little movie but I just wasn't really taken by it.

6/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

As the subject line above says, I have to admit to an insider's point of view. I was an award-winning investigative reporter and editor working in newspapers, magazines, wire services, radio, and network-affiliate TV. I quit journalism in 1980 in large part because of the ever-increasing number of talent-challenged first-year "journalists" who wanted to be the next Woodward/Bernstein, and worse, the willingness of management (especially in local television news) to hire and even promote them. To be honest, however, I would have to add that the low pay, true even at places like The New Republic, was a major factor to an expectant father.

So I am sad to say that I completely buy the characterizations presented in this docudrama on Stephen Glass' time at that august magazine. The only thing that didn't ring true was that I never met anyone who had the time or inclination to be as considerate of his fellow journalists as Steve Glass apparently was. My wife pointed out that she never met one journalistic co-worker she would spend time with if she had the choice. I would admit that the nicest I knew were, at best, benign. I should add that I was NOT the nicest I knew. Even I didn't like me those days.

Getting back to the film, I can't speak to what actually motivated this particular person to fabricate 27 of 41 stories at a very major national magazine. The film suggests that he was too eager to please, and perhaps that is true. But that probably wasn't what motivated Jayson Blair (at the New York Times) or others who have recently been exposed as serial fabricators. Ambition unrestrained by ethics, unreasonable pressure to succeed due to premature promotions, other unknown and perhaps unknowable motivations... they probably figure into these sorts of disasters. But what is certainly true, and given very short shrift by the film, is the role journalistic management plays. To put a rather fine point to it, too many editors do not know how to, or perhaps just don't like to, do their jobs.

Too many times I see on national news programs statements treated as fact that somehow I can't believe were ever fact-checked. Just today I saw an episode of HBO's RealSports where an amazing statistic was mentioned: that a certain percentage (I believe about 4% but wasn't taking notes) of people who start playing poker as young kids go on to have gambling problems. I instantly asked myself: where did those statistics come from? Poker playing among the very young (pre-college-age) was probably a fairly rare thing before the past couple of years. How would they know today that 15 years ago such-and-such a percent would later have problems? If you understand statistics you would know that you can't find gambling addicts now, ask how many played poker as young kids, and extrapolate any useful estimate of future danger (100% of alcoholics once drank socially, but that doesn't mean 100% of social drinkers go on to become alcoholics). So did some editor at RealSports check this out? Why don't I believe someone did?

In writing this six-paragraph movie review, perhaps to be seen by no one, I checked things over time and again for accuracy. Oops: I misspelled Jayson Blair; fix it. Spelling errors no one cares about in this Internet-only story: check the entire piece in an external spell checker. In all I made almost two dozen changes. No one reading this will notice, or if they do, care. But that is what I do because I once was an editor.

It is this instinct for distrust of EVERYTHING anyone says or writes, including oneself and one's own work, that I believe is missing in far too many editors today. It is this shortcoming that allowed Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair et al to last so long before being exposed. It is a major weakness in journalism, and the lack of acknowledgement of this weakness is the only fault I found in this otherwise excellent film.

This is one really awesome journalism movie base on the true story. Staring Hayden Christensen as Stephen Glass, a hotshot reporter working for one of the most respected magazine The New Republic cause a stir among the news world as he was caught that most of his story are fictional.

The balance of the substance with a great story and dialogue is the highlight part of this movie - And that what make this movie so pleasurable to watch. The flow of the movie is just right (compare to most journalism this is great) cause it does feel like drag on and on.

Another thing that can't be denied is the cast of all the talented actors and they all work together so well especially Hayden and Peter, they were splendid. Nevertheless I wish the writer could elaborate the other characters a lot more because some of the character were there having a number of parts but didn't do anything (like for Rosario and Melanie).

Overall the movie is quite stunning at least for the first time viewer. Sadly to say but despite the movie be pretty good there are hardly stuff to hold on to and therefore quite easy to forget.

Reason To Watch: accurate events, strong acting and dialogues.

Reason Not To: Not so memorable.

Recommendation: Yes, worth a rental.

Rating: 7/10 (Grade: B-)

This is, without a doubt, one of the best films of the current season. It is a movie that makes one think about our values, and above all, how low will some people go to get their 15 minutes worth of fame by lying, cheating and taking down the same institutions they are trying to break into.

The idea of this picture is based on actual facts, so there is nothing fabricated in it, as we are presented an ambitious man working his way up the editorial ladder. Stephen Glass, is such a person. This is a very intelligent individual who goes to extremes to write fiction and make the reader believe that what he is reading is fact. Heaven help us from the Stephen Glasses of the world.

Stephen Glass was the perfect person to be hired by the New Republic, a magazine for the elite. It is a magazine that prides itself in only running text and no pictures. Well, it would have helped the publication to have demanded photographic proof from Mr. Glass, as the receptionist clearly points out at the end.

The cast assembled by director Billy Ray for this film is flawless. The work of Hayden Christensen as Stephen Glass, and Peter Sarsgaard as Jack Lane are brilliant. This was an inspired choice as both bring to the film the right tone, complementing one another. These actors will go far, no doubt.

The ensemble cast is also very effective. Chloe Sevigny, Rosario Dawson, Hank Azaria and Steve Zahn make you believe they are the people they are supposedly playing, which, in itself, is no small accomplishment.

I really enjoyed watching this. It is important for us to sometimes to have a peek into journalist world. This film is an excellent portrayal of what happens often in the journalist circles, and we small mortals do not even have a chance to know a lot about it.

Plot is very interesting, and as far as I understand it is based on the true events. I enjoyed every minute of it. Well done script writers! Acting is also excellent, I love Peter Sarsgaard, not because he has the same name like me, but because he looks and acts like he is myopic (no hard feelings Pete, I hope to see you in many more film, I am like your fan). Do you have your facebook fan page? Not to forget those cute little young actresses. Mmmmm, wouldn*t be nice to see them in those OTHER films? ;) All in all, I strongly recommend this film!

Very enjoyable film, with good acting and great direction. Captivating story of a true pathological liar, with no regard for anyone in his path.

Steven Glass is represented as a writer who is intent upon gaining money, fame, friends, or any combination thereof through deceipt in his work. His transformation from 'likeable kid' to 'loser' is astounding, in that he never really transforms.

The best part of the film is how your feelings towards Glass will change 180 degrees from the start, despite the film never altering his personality one bit along the way. The viewer is merely presented the story, while the most drama will come from your own emotional reaction to what you are discovering.

Set in 1998, Shattered Glass is drama about a journalist set in the offices of highly regarded American journal, 'The New Republican', which boasts that it is the only one read on the Presidents plane Air Force One.

Shattered Glass is a quite entertaining and thought provoking, visceral film which could easily be a dull and boring piece of cinema but these fine actors hone this to be one drama that keeps your interest. Hayden Christensen is Stephen Glass the new 'hot shot' young journalist on the team of a groundbreaking publication. He hits a mark as an actor in this film where you feel he is quite unlike what he did in the Star Wars prequels that disappointed so many fans. Who would of thought this possible? … Here Glass is funny, intelligent, and a popular colleague but possibly becomes what could be a thorn to the team.

Zahn plays journalist Adam Penenberg with an internet magazine whose interest is spiked by his boss editor who finds an article, that was written by Glass, about a hacker which appears in the 'The New Republican'. His editor knows one 1-2 items in the article are untrue and asks Zahn to follow it up. Zahn does and these false items in the article snowball. The 2 magazine editors meet on this point, Azaria is great as Michael Kelly the popular New Republican editor.

I am sure Tom Cruise as an associate producer helped get this film off the ground that possibly would have been a bland story without his backing and attracting the actors Shattered Glass has.

Hank Azaria and Chloe Sveginy are very good here as is Skaarsgaard. Zahn shines also.

There are post-scripts at the end of the film but it was a shame at least the main female character Chloë Sevigny as Caitlin Avey, whom we come to care for in her pivotal role should of at least been honoured. Unfortunately only the 3-4 main male characters get this privilege.

Shattered Glass is on the whole a very good film but loses something towards the end.

SPOILER WARNING

This is a fair film, but far from a great one. Obviously the work of an inexperienced director (Billy Ray), it contains a central structural flaw in the screenplay that holds it down: it makes the mistake of telling the story from several perspectives, employing an almost anti-"Catch Me If You Can" structure (never revealing the main character's actions as they happen, only showing the impact on others) while at the same time using a highly subjective bookend device which brings us directly into the main character's inner thoughts. The result is slightly uneven, and emotionally less involving than it could have been.

The film begins with celebrated journalist Stephen Glass (pretty-boy actor Hayden Christensen) being proudly introduced by his former high school teacher to her journalism class. Glass espouses his knowledge and journalistic philosophies to wide-eyed and hopeful students.

At this point, Glass is the main character. We are with him; we hear his thoughts through voice-over and learn his philosophies. So far, so good.

But as the second act begins, the perspective changes, and suddenly Adam Penenberg (Steve Zahn, excellent) -- who would ordinarily be the antagonist, the man who exposes our hero Glass -- becomes the main character!

Suddenly we are with Penenberg, hearing his thoughts and actions as he becomes determined to expose the fraudulent Glass. If "The Graduate" had taken this approach, we'd have seen Mr. Robinson plotting his revenge on Benjamin Braddock; if "Easy Rider" had done it, we'd have seen the rednecks planning their ambush before finally killing George Hanson. Thank God level heads (and smart filmmakers) prevailed back then.

We are so distanced from Glass's behavior, in fact, that we don't even know if he's lying about his news sources or not -- though most audiences will guess he is making stuff up due to reviews and trailers for the film. But we are never with him when at the moment of fabrication, and don't quite understand his motives.

As the second act continues, another character, new editor Charles Lane (Peter Sarsgaard) -- initially a secondary character -- becomes more prominent, eventually becoming the true main character. By the end of the film he wins the approval of the employees who once scorned him.

At this point, Hayden Christensen is barely in the film. He has become the opponent -- and not an important one at that.

A less radical shifting of perspectives can sometimes work. "American Beauty" shows the private goings-on of the satellite characters -- but Lester Burnham is always the main focus, the man whose viewpoint is always uppermost in our minds. Most importantly, these scenes never drive the plot, they merely help set it up or enhance it. The secondary characters are never allowed to take center stage, control the action, or reveal more than our hero does.

But throughout most of "Shattered Glass" the supporting cast does just that.

The action is mainly controlled by Zahn and Saarsgard; Glass merely reacts, defending himself, back-peddling. We never see what goes on outside the office except when we cut to Zahn at his place, or Sarsgaard at home trying to figure things out.

All of this might work as kind of a mystery -- leaving the audience to wonder what the hell is going on -- but director Ray begins and ends the film with subjective views of Glass -- and occasionally cuts back to him in the classroom - establishing him as the main character.

The other main problem with the film, in my view, is Hayden Christensen's performance. Christensen continues the same monotonous, infantile,lifeless delivery that completely destroyed "Attack of the Clones" and didn't help "Life as a House." But here he has added something worse: he speaks so hurriedly and slurred, emphasizing the wrong words, breezing over important ones -- that much of his dialogue is incomprehensible (Lucas evidently curbed this mush-mouth tendency, while novice Ray was not smart enough to do so).

Speaking in this trendy, fast-paced manner that many teenagers now favor -- making two-syllable words into one syllable, letting words trail off without enunciating -- is positively disastrous in a movie like this. "Client" and "terror" become one-syllable words; "terrorist" becomes two. "Then you'll help me?" becomes "Thenyulhellme?" By racing through his lines, Christensen not only diffuses the power of the script, he comes off as a mealy-mouthed, James Dean wannabe -- delivery important dialogue like a speed freak with a speech impediment.

Some of Christenson's acting is downright embarrassing, coming off more like a first rehearsal of a soap opera, a script read-through before the acting begins. The awkward dialogue doesn't help. And much annoying soap opera- style character name usage -- a typical problem in a young director's work -- is employed ("What do you think, Caitlin?" "I'm not sure, Amy.") That type of thing.

But Christensen almost makes up for his sins by the end, when he's pushed to the brink and appears ready to fall apart. He shows some potential. If only the great studio voice coaches were still around to teach him how to talk.

Chloe Sevigney and Melanie Lynskey seem to have jumped onto the same speed freak bandwagon as well, while Zahn, Sarsgaard and Hank Azaria and are all, thankfully, normal -- and real actors. All three are excellent, but Sarsgaard stands out in particular. His work is Academy Award worthy; I would be happy to see him a get a nomination.

All in all, not a bad first film. I'm sure a lot of learning was done -- and I look forward to Billy Ray's sophomore effort.

As the film opens we meet Stephen Glass, a rising star at "The New Republic" magazine. He's sensitive, friendly and unfailingly polite. And, oh yeah, did I mention he was on everybody's hot list? He was being wooed by everyone from "George Magazine" to "Harper's" to the "New York Times." Unfortunately, behind the Glass juggernaut was a compulsive liar who took everyone for a downhill ride. You see, Glass fabricated over 20 stories, inventing sources, locations, times, dates, and companies.

Hayden Christensen was fabulous as the ingratiating/creepy Glass. As a CNN.com reviewer pointed out, this movie proves he can act.

Christensen's Glass is the ultimate likeable co-worker, who remembers everyone's birthday, knows how everyone takes their coffee and is so self-deprecatingly sweet that when things start unraveling you feel sorry for him. Despite his audacious lies and deceits, you like him and wonder why everyone is being so mean. Christensen walks the fine line between good and evil so well, you watch in amazement. You feel sorry for him, you're repulsed by him, you're embarrassed for him...

At times I turned to my friend and said "Man! Is this hard to watch." And it was.

Peter Sarsgaard, who plays Glass' editor, Chuck Lane, is wonderfully understated as the misunderstood editor. (For those at home who care, he's also really cute in that nerdy handsome way.)

The movie incisively exposes the world of journalism -- with it's big egos, pedantic copy editors, and ultra-competitive writers. I could see many of my co-workers (current and former) in the archetypes portrayed on screen (the braggart, the attention getter, the know-it-all, the guy who will split the most microscopic of hairs just for the heck of it).

It also brings home the incredible responsibility on the shoulders of journalists. It's easy to forget this responsibility in pursuit of personal glory or attention, but it's the reader who gets hurt. Everyone in the business of journalism should see this movie. But with its twists and turns and shocking (yet true!) events, it's a movie for anyone who enjoys a good thriller.

...Justice will be done. As an aspiring writer, one of the biggest problems for me (as with all authors, I'm sure) is setting up a believable story with realistic characters and motivations, but the trick is being able to do so within the more realistic realm of fiction.

With that in mind, then think about this for a moment: A story about a 15 year-old computer hacker who brings a major software company to its knees would make for great entertainment at office meetings or parties. It has a realistic setting and a believable plot, with a kid who hacks into a company's database, and offers his services in preventing others from doing so, but first wants "X-Men" #1, a new car, and subscriptions to Playboy and Penthouse. This kid is then hailed as a hero within the hacker community, and he gets to sit back and revel in his newfound fame.

Stephen Glass (Hayden Christensen) had this story nailed down pat - characters and everything, but his problem was that he was not a fiction author, he was the premiere writer for an important technological magazine and nearly ran it into ground when it was discovered that he had fabricated more than half of his articles.

Make no mistake though, "Shattered Glass," which details Stephen Glass' devastating fall from grace when his deception is unearthed by the staffers of a rival magazine, is not at all a pleasant experience. I sometimes had to remember that this was based on a true story, and that a man lied to earn his fame.

I have to admit that by the time the credits began to roll, I was almost on the verge of tears, because I was so saddened and angry - saddened because Glass was on the surface, basically a good and well-liked person. I was angry because this well-liked man was also a fraud, and he deservedly got caught when he became trapped by his own elaborate deceptions.

The final 20 minutes are the most achingly difficult moments to sit through, as Glass' plans come apart at the seams, and we the audience are given front-row seats to his destruction. And we watch as Charles "Chuck" Lane (Peter Sarsgaard) sits back and (unsympathetically) bears witness to all of it. He is totally unflinching to Glass' pleas to drive him somewhere before he does something terrible to himself, like suicide.

It would also help to imagine yourself in Lane's position as an editor, to finally hear that you have been deceived by a kid, a bright kid nonetheless, and then find yourself faced with the difficult task of cleaning up the devastation. You then have to print a formal apology in the next issue of your magazine saying to your readers that they've been lied to.

An effective, powerful film - "Shattered Glass" - and I'm not sure that I could ever sit through it again.

10/10

This is a brilliant rendering of an all-too-true story of deception and cover-up in modern journalism. In the late 1990's the magazine world witnessed the quick unraveling of Stephen Glass, a writer for The New Republic. Glass contributed many first-rate and well-praised articles for the edgy and respected magazine; but, because of a rare slip-up, over 25 of the 41 pieces he authored were revealed to be wholly or partially fabricated. To top off the already-fascinating tale is Lions Gate's sensitive production. Hayden Christensen, Peter Sarsgaard, Hank Azaria and Chloe Sevigny bring their unique talents to this sad footnote in journalistic history. Especially chilling is the Billy Ray direction which juxtaposes Glass speaking to a journalism class with the disintegration of his facade at the magazine. I was riveted by this wonderful film and recommend it to anyone interested in the mind of a disturbed man

Stephen Glass (Hayden Christensen) is a young ace reporter for The New Republic. The magazine is heralded as the inflight magazine of Air Force One. Glass is personable and his stories are fabulously enticing. He expertly weaves his fables with panache. Chuck Lane (Peter Sarsgaard) is originally a reporter, but then gets elevated to editor. Chuck is the exact opposite of Glass. He is reserved, and stickler for the work. As a reporter, he struggles to keep up with Glass's flashier stories. As an editor, nobody trusts him. When Glass's article on computer hackers is questioned by an online publication, things spin out of control.

The true story is shocking. And the movie portrays it with realism. This is probably Hayden's greatest performance. He has the boyish charm that makes all those lies believable. But he also has a twitchy quality about him. It's also believable that he made up all those lies. This is infinitely better than the Star Wars debacle. Peter Sarsgaard has that quiet intensity that is perfect for his role.

The only thing I didn't like was the older lady at the end when she says that if only they had pictures.... That's not necessarily any solution. Pictures can be doctored just as easily. And pictures can distract any fact checkers. I don't know if somebody actually said that in real life. But it's one line that I'd rather cut out.

I think it's too bad that Hayden Christensen will always have the Star Wars movies hanging over him. It overshadows some good work in this movie. He needs to find these types of roles that can challenge his acting skills.

This is the true story of a college journalist who goes to work for a Washington magazine known for factual and political articles. While he works for the magazine he continues to turn in fiction which they keep publishing until it is finally realized what he is doing and then he is confronted. The fact that the movie is based on true facts and real people is the draw here and with story after story that he turns in you're further and further lured into his world due to his likability.

Hayden Christensen plays the lead role of Stephen Glass who turns in seemingly true but later proved false stories. He does a great job though he is a bit wooden which seems to be his style of acting. Peter Sarsgaad really stands out as one of the editors that discovers what has happened to the magazine. His acting stands out and he delivers a solid performance. Another stand out here is Hank Azaria who plays another editor in the film. Azaria does a brilliant job here playing straight which we rarely get to see from this Simpson's television alum.

Shattered Glass is a surprising little film from new director Billy Ray who is better known for his sceenwriting that his direction. I'm sure when they signed on Christensen who was coming off playing Darth Vador in the Star Wars series, they were thinking big hit. The movie stayed small. Even though it might be a small film, it is really quite good and you should catch it if you have the chance. **/****.

The poster for the most part is what you would expect. It is a total face concentration on Christensen since he was the draw of the film. He's a pretty boy so his close up is pleasing, but these headshots of the 2000 movies, this one is 2003, is getting old fast. I can only hope the next decade brings us some better design, especially on these smaller films where everything has to be double the effort.

My fiancée and I were at Blockbuster one night, looking for a movie, and he pointed to a bunch of titles that held absolutely no interest for me. I didn't want to look rude, so I picked the least offensive-looking one, a movie about journalism that looked like something I might be able to at least sit through. The movie's cast screamed 'Hip! Independent!' but I figured if I could browse the Internet at the same time, I wouldn't die watching "Shattered Glass." It started out not-so-promising. I remained on the Internet, and glanced up every now and then to see Hayden Christenson (as reporter Stephen Glass) acting whiny (and delivering his lines in a rather flat voice) and Melanie Lynskey acting the way she always does in movies. Still, something made me keep glancing up, and soon I became engaged in the story of the rather-unlikable Stephen and his adventures at the New Republic magazine.

In case viewers weren't aware, we find out fairly soon into the film that Stephen's popular news stories aren't quite what they seem. In fact, he's blatantly making them up ... and the movie really begins to PICK up when a geeky hacker at a rival, smaller (online) magazine notices the inaccuracies in Stephen's latest piece. That hacker and his co-horts make it their mission to set things straight... and it's not long before Stephen has turned from a young, hip reporting Superstar, popular with his staff, to a pathetic, crybaby, excuses-making mess.

The actors in this film aren't typically my favorites, but I don't really hate them, either -- and they're in top form here. Surprisingly, the actor I tend to dislike the most (Steve Zahn) is the one responsible for getting the movie going (as the hacker who outs Stephen) and thankfully, he's much less flamboyant than in other roles. Melanie Lynskey and Chloe Sevigny, both reporters and staunch defenders of Stephen, don't show us anything they haven't before, but they're decent and believable. Hayden Christenson, despite his oft-monotone voice, felt whiny and prissy throughout most of the film... but in the end it worked for his loser-ish character. And Hank Azaria manages not to offend as a well-liked editor who gets fired by the New Republic boss in favor of a guy who's not so beloved by the staff.

The new editor, Chuck, is played by Peter Sarsgaard -- and he's the actor who impressed me the most in this film. I've read a lot of gushing reviews of his performance since watching it, and I'm actually glad I watched before reading (since sometimes gushing reviews tend to turn me off). But Sarsgaard is excellent here as the stuffy, square Chuck. He, Chuck, knows the staff members resent him; he also strongly suspects that Zahn & co. are right about his star reporter, and Sarsgaard perfectly captures that awkward circumstance of knowing you're unpopular and knowing you have to make the right decision even if that decision will be as unpopular as you are. I doubt if I'll go out and rent all of Sarsgaard's films, but he actually made me wonder more than once "who is that actor?" which is rare. I give him props for a job well done! Other than the somewhat-slow beginning, the movie's most noteworthy flaw is that some of Stephen's fantasy sequences seem a bit overdone. However, there's one ongoing fantasy of sorts that might not make much sense at first yet makes perfect sense at the film's close (and nicely coincides with Chuck's status in the workplace).

I thank my fiancée for pointing to this movie.

Before expressing what seemed to me to be shortcomings, I should state in all fairness that "Shattered Glass" is one very well made movie. It's tightly woven and extremely well acted by all which makes for compelling viewing. However, overall it leaves a far lesser impact than one might expect.

Perhaps the crime in question is not as sensational as the film would have us believe. In this age of the internet where nobody can take written text (or images for that matter) on face value as being honest, one can hardly get too steamed up about a magazine journalist faking stories. Without wishing to justify such practices, it's not quite the same as the faking of experiment results that top scientists have at times been guilty of. After all, very little harm was done as a result of his well written and entertaining writings. Yet the fervor with which Glass is hounded would have us believe him guilty of the most heinous of crimes.

The motivation and personality of the fabricator are surely the really interesting aspects in such a story. Very little is offered in terms of storyline and background as to Glass's complex character. We are left to make our own assessments as to his mind set, based upon Hayden Christensen's sensitive portrayal of his character's downward spiral. The emphasis is placed rather on the process of finding him out which is less interesting than the motivating factors that caused the talented Glass to fabricate his stories.

This is basically a tale of morality and the film smacks a bit too much of self righteousness particularly in its final scene. Still, there's much to recommend here, in particular Sarsgaard and Christensen's spot on performances.

Hayden's acting is brilliant and on point, alright. I've been in tears for the last 30 or 40 minutes. Not to mention, Peter Sarsgaard. He was fantastic too. Watched this because it's Hayden's movie. A great movie, indeed. Watch it and you'll change your opinion about Hayden Christensen.

Great story, excellent casting with very good performance and a fine screenplay with good direction.

Hayden Christensen is perfectly cast as Stephen Glass, and really looks the part. Just the right balance of geeky, youthful, naivete and charm and Christensen plays well to these traits. There is, thankfully, no attempt to draw Christensen's character into side stories and romance and yet the character is perfectly well drawn.

But you have to wonder if this is really a big screen movie. It's a 60 minute at best and the attempt to raise the tension come across as attempts to string it out. No one died, after all.