Shattered Glass (2003)

From my favorite movies..

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

the media. the price of success. the need to impose your name to the others. and the chosen way to become famous. Hayden Christensen does a great job. his character remains the same. but the perception about him knows profound change. and this is the most provocative detail. because the viewer is implicated in the definition of verdict about Glass. not an easy thing in contemporary fight for rating, online/outline media who impose different versions of success for rating, in the time of superficiality and hungry of success with reduced effort. more than a good film, its virtue is to be useful support for reflection about near reality. the story of Glass could be remind of old myth of Faust. in same measure, it is interesting introspection in the circle of news makers who risk to becoming makers of truths. so, more than useful analysis about the fall of a star, remember of talent of Christensen or fatal error. a clear portrait of reality perception with the help of media.

Shattered Glass is a film that I would not traditionally watch, but I am glad I took the time to watch it. It was very educational on a topic I did not know of before watching the film. It did a very good job of making the viewer feel the way real people involved in this event felt. It made us feel bad for the main character Stephen Glass, and even sympathize with him. It would specifically be a good watch if the viewer is either interested in or involved in journalism. The film depicts a real life event and shows the consequences that come along with journalistic lying. The story is re-told in an interesting and correct way in light of the real events that occurred at the magazine company. The film was well made and I would recommend taking the time to watch it.

I watched this movie in my journalism class and learned a lot from it. It showed the career of Stephen glass and how he got so far up in it , but it was actually all a lie. Stephen glass was a guy who was just trying to make a name for himself, but he did it through lying and making up fictional stories and publishing them as truth. The movie itself was an excellent portrayal of a man who did not live up to the journalistic standards in the eyes of his editor and the general public. I would recommend it for everyone to watch, especially those who are considering going into the journalism field and who want to see how NOT to make a name for themselves.

The synopsis of this film is very straightforward – a young and up and coming journalist, Stephen Glass, lands a job at the prestigious and influential news magazine 'The New Republic'. He is very much the rising star and apparent darling of his editor (Hank Azaria). He seems to have a nose for news and finds things other just don't even get a sniff at.Then one of his stories is challenged and all of a sudden he is revealed for the fraud that he really is. What follows is a gripping tale where I found my sentiments go through a complete shift when you see how duplicitous he actually was.This is based on a real story and is amazing that someone could have gotten away with it for so long – some three years from 1995 to 1998. The actors here are excellent especially Hayden Christensen as the baby faced Glass. Peter Sarsgaard as Chuck puts in an emotionally under played performance too. This though is an ensemble piece and the whole thing has a quality feel from start to finish; a real gem of a film that I find easy to recommend.