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.

My review of this movie is that it really did not have the meat & potatoes that I look for in a good movie,I mean yes it shows you a good example of a liar and a spineless,whiny tailed creep, yet it missed what makes a movie a good movie or a seat clincher.So if I had to give this movie a letter grade it would be a 'D' and that is being very generous.I am glad I did not have to pay to see this movie, I believe the only reason that I watched it was for it was a class assignment and I needed to.So go head and check it out what's good to me might not be the same for you and visa versa. (Are you MAD @ me)..... lol. Waste of an hour and a half could've got a well needed nap in at least.

"Once a liar, always a liar", my father once told me. Lying can be very deadly to people. You start off by only telling one lie, then end up having to tell another just to verify the first one. That is where the domino effect begins, you have to keep making up lies over and over again just to protect yourself. Instead, you just end up spinning yourself into a web that you can never really seem to untangle without hurting everyone around you. In the movie "Shattered Glass", a young writer by the name of Stephen Glass, got an amazing job as a journalist for the popular magazine The New Republic in his early 20's. His career hit off and he wrote 41 stories that bring an exciting new touch to the magazine. People loved reading his articles, until one day Mr. Glasses life came crumbling down. Twenty-seven out of forty-one article were either partially or completely fabricated. The New Republic could not tolerate this because they did not support non-fiction what-so-ever. Stephen found himself lying about everything just to cover up his tracks. He wanted a short cut to fame, but just wound up friendless, jobless, and completely untrustworthy. He would never be able to find a successful journalist career after that, because his word wasn't worth anything anymore. I thought film was alright (I would probably give it a 7.5 out of 10). It was based off a true story, which I enjoy a lot in films, and it has a really good ending. It also teaches a good lesson about lying and how the sweat and tears are worth the outcome. Cheating your way never works, you will end up at the bottom faster than you got to the top. You should never put yourself in a web of lies, because as my father once also shared with me, "honesty is the best policy".

Okay, so if there's one thing I don't want to say it's that there are two kinds of movies in the world; the good movies and the bad movies. . . okay, yes I do because I often find that when I watch a movie I'm either completely enthralled in it or I'm left trying to figure out what the hell I just watched. Which is why I'm quite frankly surprised with Shattered Glass, not in the sense that it was a good movie (meaning it achieved its goal in making the point it set out to make) and not in the sense that it was a bad movie (meaning it's plot and purpose was less coherent than a schizophrenic parrot tripping' hard on LSD. (I'm looking at you '21 Jump Street!)) No, what surprised, and somewhat confused me was the fact that Shattered Glass didn't seem to know what it was. It seemed to be lost somewhere between being a movie and a documentary. At first it seemed to be a movie, what with its attention-grabber opening featuring Anikin Skywalker- er, I mean, Stephen Glass giving a soulful narration about betraying the Jedi order I mean how to be a good journalist, but the 'movie feel' stopped about there because Glass's back-story virtually disappeared other than a passing reference to his high school language arts teacher, which turned out to be a guilt or possibly LSD induced flashback *cough!* 21 Jump Street *cough*, but I digress.The main issue, when you boil it down, is the fact that the writer couldn't seem to decide who his focus character would be. It starts with Force-choke McGee who then proceeds to fumble the protagonist ball to be picked up by 'Mr. Benefitofthedoubt' who passes it to Commodore Pencil-Pusher, only to have it intercepted by the president of 'Nerds Weekly' and his sidekick, Miss Token Minority who then decide to team up with Commodore Pencil-Pusher in a maniacal attempt to create the first Galactic Empire! I mean, expose Glass for the lying snot-wad that he is. And after all that, just when I've decided to classify it as a documentary, Shattered Glass decides to go and pee all over my proverbial cupcakes by tossing the ball back to Darth Snotwad and letting him finish up the movie all Stranger Than Fiction style in the hopes that I wouldn't notice the fact that it would have been much better if it had just followed the President of Nerds Weekly in his quest to eliminate lying chuck-nuggets from news and magazine articles- AHA! HAHAHA! Good luck with that crusade, Sir Liveswithmymom! Call me when you invent a new number, then we'll talk about doing the hard stuff.So all in all, Shattered Glass wasn't a "bad" film, but it definitely wasn't very enthralling. It achieved its objective in telling the viewers about what happened in the true event that it reflected, but it could have done it better. It's one of those films you should eventually watch for enlightenment purposes, but don't expect to be blown away by it, so don't bother going out of your way to get it 'as soon as possible'.