Shattered Glass

Rating:
Summary: Woodward, Bernstein, and Lord Vader
Review: This movie is quite entertaining. It's like a mini-All The President's Men, but more accessible. The web of lies that Darth Vader's character spins makes you, as the viewer, more and more uncomfortable as he backs himself into a corner. Wow, that was two cliches in just one sentence!

Anyway, there are some great characters in Darth Vader's new boss (Peter Sarsgaard) at the paper, his old boss (Hank Azaria) as well as a character for Steve Zahn that is refreshingly not high.

Rating:
Summary: A fascinating film and (true) story
Review: I remember thinking (back in 1998 when the New Republic scandal was making headlines) how strange and intriguing the story was. Promising young writer Stephen Glass of a reputable current events and policy magazine - and apparently the then in-flight magazine of the president's Air Force One - is exposed for making up facts, events, and people in his articles. This excellent film re-tells that story. It's important to pay attention in the beginning, as the pacing is a bit slow (albeit deliberately), but it's to show us the characters' motivations and the interpersonal dynamics of the staff and work environment at the New Republic office. Once the story gets going, it really becomes an engrossing drama.

Hayden Christensen plays Stephen Glass, and he's actually quite good in this role. I had only seen him as Anakin in the Star Wars films, but he shows more depth here, though, I'm still not convinced that he's as versatile an actor as others his age. Hank Azaria - veteran 'voice' in The Simpsons TV series - is absolutely believable in his smallish role as Michael Kelly, the senior editor. Peter Sarsgaard (who I liked and feared in Boys Don't Cry) plays Chuck Lane, who takes over for the departing Michael Kelly as Glass's boss and is ultimately the hero of this story. Sarsgaard, alone, is worth the ticket price (or DVD rental/purchase). Chloë Sevigny also stars and Rosario Dawson and Steve Zahn have small parts as well.

So you can see by the featured actors that a lot of young talent is at hand. I was well impressed with this film. There is no gun-play, no action, no sex, and no F-words, so it's probably going to bore unenlightened viewers. But for those of us who like human drama, it's pretty special.

As for the bonus features, there is an excerpt of a 60 Minutes Special on Glass, which is really amusing as we get to meet the real Stephen Glass. By the end of the featurette, one certainly does get a sense for what a weasel Glass was (and probably still is).

There is also a feature-length commentary with director Billy Ray and the real Chuck Lane. This is one of the best parts of the DVD actually, because Lane is such a knowledgeable, likeable and modest guy, it's really a gift to hear his insight into the real-life events that took place. In contrast, Billy Ray annoys with his superfluous praising of his cast and crew; he practically confesses his incompetence as a first-time director. I don't doubt Billy Ray's intelligence and abilities, because the movie is excellent and it's clear that he really wanted to do the drama and the facts justice (and succeeded!); but it felt like he was using the commentary track as his own personal soapbox to thank everyone for being so "extraordinary" and "fantastic".

All in all, I was extremely pleased with my purchase. I don't watch all my DVDs over and over, but you'll want to watch this one at least a second time for the engaging commentary with the director and Chuck Lane. Highly recommended.

Rating:
Summary: Of interest mainly to journalism students
Review: I might have given this film higher marks but for its relatively limited appeal. "The New Republic" is a venerable old publication with a small staff but the director never makes clear to me why I should care. Like the recent New York Times case, this is a real case; it actually happened. At first, much is made of the fact that the staff reviews "each and every story submitted" several times for accuracy. In typical Hollywood fashion, a surprisingly dramatic story emerges about a young writer who systematically deceives his editors and the public by writing a series of totally false articles. He also deceives himself as well, since the scenes before the "classroom" among an admiring teacher & students at his former high school eventually prove delusional also. It is unclear to me at the end whether Glass is truly delusional or simply a kid playing an elaborate prank, or both; I suspect only the latter. At first I wanted to side with Glass, who questioned why his editor would not stand up for him. The scenes in which the new editor slowly and painstakingly uncovers the extent of Glass' deception, while Glass repeatedly lies about it (and they are hardly white lies either), are filled with quite a bit of dramatic tension, I must admit. Apparently he was just fired and avoided criminal prosecution.

Rating:
Summary: Slick and shallow, kind of like its subject
Review: I for one found this film to be very enjoyable, if only because I used to work for a publication very much like The New Republic. As I don't live in D.C. anymore, it was like a nostalgiac trip down memory lane for me. I also knew some of the principals involved, and that provided a frisson of familiarity.

For a movie on such a nominally dry subject, it sustained a forward narrative drive throughout, without a moment of boredom anywhere. One might go so far as to say it was surprisingly "riveting," if one were prone to use cliches. And for those who know absolutely nothing about the journalism game, it might provide a window, however small and smudged, into the soul of that once-noble profession. The acting was for the most part superb too, including the absolutely crucial role of Stephen Glass, played by Star Wars' Hayden Christiansen.

Now that the encomiums are out of the way, permit me to detail my criticisms. First of all, the film failed to identify one of the principal reasons why Glass got away with his deceptions for so long -- many of his fabricated articles exploited the biased preconceptions of his co-workers. More specifically, the editors were predisposed to believe any tale of hypocrisy or ludricrousness concerning conservatives, no matter how outlandish, because their progressive views carpeted the path ahead of Glass's pretend confirmations of the distorted opinions they already held regarding conservatives.

If more reporters maintained a more open mind about the subjects of their articles, then fewer fabricated confirmations of their ingrained prejudices would make their way into their publications.

My second quibble regards the character background (and consequently, development) of Stephen Glass. We learn virtually nothing about the person, other than the name of the town he grew up in. Consequently, we have no idea why he did what he did, when so many other reporters are faced with the very same pressures and temptations every day. Why Stephen Glass and not the others? Watch this movie and you won't really find an answer.

But you will find yourself viewing film that satisfies both intellectually and emotionally, if you are inclined to seek one.

Rating:
Summary: Brilliant character study. One of 2003's very best movies.
Review: This is a gem of a movie, which is among 2003's very best, should have received even more critical, and especially commercial, acclaim than it did when it was initially released. Although I did not contribute to its bottom line during its theatrical run, am I ever glad that I listened to a friend of mine who loved the movie and finally got around to renting the DVD. It's so good that I am going to buy it and I am not a big DVD buyer.

Although many of you are already familiar with this hard to believe true story, as it received much press and even appeared in the television show "60 Minutes," nothing you've heard can prepare you for this movie as its strength lies in its sublime acting, and even more importantly in the way the story is framed by writer and first time director Billy Ray in such a way that makes for a quite a suspenseful and thrilling ride.

Possible spoiler ahead, but does not reveal too much! However, if you've never heard of Steven Glass or the events that this movie chronicles, you may want jump to the next paragraph as it could make your movie experience may even more pleasurable without knowing anything about it. In a nutshell the movie tells the story of a journalist at The New Republic" magazine, who had the unique talent to come up with and chronicle colorful stories that were a shot in the arm to a traditional magazine that was a must read mainly for policy-makers (yes, even Presidents) and other politicos. Even those of you who know that Mr. Glass will not be remembered for his reporting but for the series of events that led to his ultimate downfall, will enjoy what is in essence a universal story about ambition, power, manipulation, reinvention and that we should not always believe what hear or even see.

For those who skipped the previous paragraph, it's safe to read now. The movie brilliantly chronicles the ups and downs of a young journalist (played by Hayden Christensen in what should have been an Oscar nominated performance) of a high-brow political magazine. At the start I mention that the movie's main strength lies in the manner in which it frames the movie, and I won't give it away.

One interesting fact that you will find out in the director's commentary (which is an invaluable extra on this DVD) about the movie's greatest strength is that was originally not told in its eventual framework and was a last minute decision made when the original structure failed to impress anyone, including the director himself. From seeing the movie, you'd never know that to be the case, and it's one of those inside stories that to me represent the very best of DVD extras. If it had not been for an additional couple of days of shooting after the initial wrap, we could have seen what I think would still be a great movie, but certainly not as good as what we get to see. While the release has no deleted scenes or outtakes (which is for the best as there is usually a reason for their exclusion from a film), I was overjoyed to hear the director's commentary over the entire movie as it is a lesson in filmmaking from a guy who was directing his very first movie. The commentary was so interesting that I wound up in essence seeing the whole movie twice as I saw it and immediately jumped into the commentary and I could not stop until it ended. Thank God that the movie is very tight an just a little over 90 minutes.

As I indicated above, Hayden Christensen's performance as Stephen Glass is as good as there was during 2003 and shows that he's not a one trick pony. He should in no way be judged based in his wooden work in the underwhelming "Star Wars" series, in which even the amazing Natalie Portman acts like the latest supermodel dabbling in acting. It must be something in water of where George Lucas is filming this trilogy. Peter Sarsgaard who portrays Chuck Lane, Glass' editor of The New Republic, gives one of the most nuanced and brilliant performances ever captured on film. He plays a guy you want to hate but you just might find yourself rooting for before the movie ends. Sarsgaard would have been a major movie star in the '70s, yet I hold hope that this performance makes other directors see what a goldmine he is. The performances would be considered outstanding even if they were not based on real people, but become much more brilliant when one considers how hard it is to walk the line between caricature and an honest portrayal of real people, especially when some of the real people in the story were actually present during the making of this film.

There is really not a single performance that is not solid and it shows what great things can happen when a writer-director gives his all and is supported not only by a great cast but a crew that makes him look so masterful. In the commentary Ray gives specific credit to several experts in their field who also supported him as a first time director. Even as a seasoned movie buff, I was surprised at my lack of appreciation of the people who make good directors look even better. Whether it's lighting, framing, scouting, or casting, the commentary made me want to know much more about the role of the people who we never get the public recognition that those in the forefront do. The director's commentary (maybe out of homage to journalism) highlights the few artistic liberties that he took in making this movie, which were supported by Chuck Lane, who also comments and expands on the words of Billy Ray.

The last 5 minutes of the movie are worth seeing time and time again. Although this may not mean anything right know, pay close attention to the group of people that Glass is speaking to as there is more than irony in those scenes. No, there is no big shock that is revealed, but something entirely more pleasurable and honest to the movie's structure. This is a must-see film which easily earns 5 stars.

Rating:
Summary: Only worth it for the 60 minutes interview
Review: Stephen Glass wrote some amusing fake stories that briefly animated the journalism of a few staid media outlets, while at the same time calling those self-appointed arbiters of reality on their own relentless propagation of a normative status quo fueled by cliché narrative practice. At least, that would be an extreme way of describing it. To be fair, most journalists have no idea of their perpetuation of the status quo. Glass's ingenious con in which nothing was truly at stake other than the extent of one's faith or personal investment in sanctimonious newspaper realities and other bland self-righteous systems of perception manufacture deserves at least an intelligent wink, if not more sustained recognition. Whether or not it was entirely intentional, the joke that Glass pulled on the humorless soul-sucking news/information industry was a refreshing alternative to their ubiquitous and pushy herd-mentality failure of vision. Unfortunately this movie is like a massive lead blanket thrown over the possibility of an X-ray. Dreary, trite, and lacking in nuance or humor--full of the same hackneyed vehicles and "sensitive" banalities you would expect from any typical Hollywood movie--plan to be lulled into a half-disgusted sleep. While the story is interesting from an intellectual point of view, and the fake articles are themselves fun to read, basing a story on the individuals involved doesn't make for much of a movie. Notwithstanding, don't miss the hilarious 60 minutes interview with the real Stephen Glass, in which the unctuous Mr. Glass coyly describes how he did it all "for love" to a befooled wooden-faced Steve Kroft who struggles to understand Stephen's "motives." It's quite a performance! My girlfriend and I watched it three times and couldn't stop laughing after we had given up on the unwatchable movie about 40 minutes in.

Rating:
Summary: True Story of a Journalist
Review: "Shattered Glass", starring Hayden Christiansen, is sure to keep audiences entertained and shocked. This true story of magazine journalist Stephen Glass who wrote and published phony articles is wonderfully told. Though some questions remain answered, it tells how and why such a young and brilliant journalist would take such actions. Such chain of events lead to a compelling conclusion. The brilliant plot shows definite research in the subject. Few other films have desplicted this matter so well. The struggles and the thrills begin growing more intense when co-workers begin investigating the sources of Glass's latest artice. Chain of events lead audiences wondering how much or if they should feel sorry for Glass. Such question and others keep audiences watching closely up to the end, when they are answered. The deception and the unremorseful actions are written and acted beautifully. Christiansen's expressions give the movie theme its added edge. His talents alone give the film the added interest. "Boys Don't Cry" stars Chloe Sevigny and Peter Sarsgaard reunite, once again giving amazing performances. Sarsgaard's Golden Globe nominated role proves that he deserves to become a big name actor in the near future. "Shattered Glass" is a great unforgettable drama that audiences of all kinds will enjoy. Those who are pleased should also watch the special features, which features a "60 Minutes" interview with Stephen Glass and more information behind the actual events.

Rating:
Summary: SHATTERED CAREER
Review: I was so riveted to the screen, you'd think much more was going on in "Shattered Glass" than the true story of the exposure of a "New Republic" magazine journalist as a fraud. It's how to make a good drama and build suspense without hanging over a cliff and detonating explosions. This is wonderful filmmaking which takes a relatively non-sensational news story and raises it to a profound and highly entertaining level. The DVD includes the original "60 Minutes" newsstory in which said reporter Phillip Glass attempts to make the viewer sympathetically understand his undoing. It is to wince.

Rating:
Summary: An interesting film with an impressive acting role
Review: This highly-praised film version of the story of star reporter Stephen Glass -- who faked dozens of stories in the late 1990s -- includes one really great performance. It's not, as many felt, that of the lead, Hayden Christensen, who perfectly mimics the mannerisms of the real-life Glass yet never gives his performance enough warmth to explain why the guy was such a good con man. Rather, it's Peter Sarsgaard, who plays Glass's editor at "The New Republic" magazine, who proves unflappable and resolute in the face of a manipulative, weasly -- yet wildly popular young reporter. It's a beautifully measured, deliciously nuanced performance, and well worth the price of admission alone. Provocative script as well, which can really make you think about the issues at hand.

Rating:
Summary: Smart movie with engaging performances.
Review: I first heard about this movie on a website, for the life of me I can not remember which one. I heard later that it won some awards and the critics loved it. So I thought this will be interesting to watch when it is finally released wide. To my dismay it never was. I looked everywhere for this movie and could never find it. So disappointed I gave up and it went to the back of my mind. Then I saw an ad for the DVD in the paper and decided to send away to Netflix for it. Is it as good as I was hoping? It was better.

Stephen Glass (Christianson) was at the top. He worked for The New Republic (self-described as the In-flight Magazine of Air Force One), and was also contributing stories to Rolling Stone, George, and Harper's Magazine. He was loved by everyone he worked with, so much that when a minor discrepancy pops up he offers his resignation. His editor (Azaria) laughs about it and tells him to go home. Then his editor is replaced with Charles "Chuck: Lane (Skarsgaard) and things begin spiraling down. It all starts with a phone call from Forbes Digital reporter Adam Penenberg (Zahn). He caught some major problems with a story. Lane initially defends him, but the facts against Glass piles up and Lane has no choice but to investigate the story. Which leads to the admission that Glass fabricated parts of if not all of over half of his stories.

Now I know what many of you are thinking. The movie sounds boring. I thought that same. I also know many of you have your doubts about seeing a movie staring Christianson. First of all let me assure you, he is brilliant in this movie. I personally liked him in Attack of the Clones but I realize many didn't. He brings such charisma to a role that you want to hate. But you can't help liking and even feeling sorry for the guy. As he unravels you are just intoxicated by the performance. But the movie really belongs to Skarsgaard. He gives such an understated performance that he was bound to win the awards he did. I had my doubts since I didn't care for him in previous movies. But I was blown away with his performance here. Also notable are Sevigny as Glass's girlfriend and coworker, Azaria, and Zahn. Nice to see Zahn in a serious role for a change.

Now I have never been a big fan of reporters, but this movie just kept my eyes glued to the screen the whole time. It is just over 90 minutes and it goes by quickly. The writing by first time first time director Billy Ray is amazing. It captures the true essence of the story and about the problems (mental and emotionally) that Glass had. I loved that he expected to get away with anything by apologizing. And when it went too far and you see Lane explode at that moment, I felt sorry for Glass. I love that the film doesn't give excuses for Glass's behavior, doesn't really make him the victim. The story smartly plays itself out and you will not be bored for a second during this movie. So take a chance and see it. You will be happy you did.