I watched this movie without being aware, beyond the two-line summary on Sky Movies, of the real-life events it supposedly portrayed. Amusingly enough, echoing the theme of the film, the summary was a little liberal with the truth. Longo didn't steal Finkel's identity. It wasn't identity theft. Longo simply used Finkel's name. Also, the time-line of when Longo did that was a bit murky. I guess we have to assume he'd read Finkel's NYT articles, up to an including the one with that stretched the truth, before he absconded to Mexico. On the whole, this film failed to deliver, on several counts, despite keeping my attention 'til the end. I guess I expected more, and kept hoping... The film posits the idea that the two undoubtedly flawed men had something in common i.e., they both indulged in lying, but to suggest their 'sin' was somehow equivalent is preposterous. Longo's approach to lying seemed to be compulsive and manipulative, whilst Finkel made one mistake. There is no suggestion in the film that Finkel was a persistent liar and, therefore, the idea that there were such similarities between the two lacks credibility. Only one man spun endless webs of lies, and if this movie is about deception, Finkel isn't the major culprit. Finkel's one lie was made with the best of intentions, albeit he breached the ethics of journalism. His purpose was honourable and what he did amounted to little more than a white lie. Turning the plot on such a line is stretching a thin idea to breaking point. This film is supposed to be about relationships, but one at least wasn't fleshed out in any meaningful way. At first, I though Finkel's wife was his sister; their interactions being more platonic than romantic. Whatever relationship they had wasn't obvious, and when it deteriorated, as it seemed to do, there was nothing substantial on screen to illustrate why. I got the impression she was unimpressed by the amount of time Finkel spent with Longo, but apart from pained looks, there were no further clues, either in the dialogue or in the characterisation. Speaking of dialogue, the flattery to which Finkel succumbs is surely juvenile writing. OK, there's only an hour and a half in which to present the story, but seriously, are we to believe a grown man was taken in by Longo's schoolboy rhetoric? Then we're led to believe that Finkel swaps journalism tips for Longo's story, ostensibly getting behind his facade and uncovering the true story behind the brutal murder of his wife and children. But there are no journalism tips, bar advice to avoid double negatives and a couple of parlour games. That advice comes back into play later, during a courthouse scene, but if it's meant to be a figurative, revealing moment, it falls short of any profundity. In fact, it's an embarrassingly banal moment. The true story is that, far from being a hard-nosed, investigative journalist, Finkel comes across as a gullible idiot. This is a drama, but its twists and turns are pretty much contrived. After Finkel gets a twinge of conscience and agrees to let the policeman have the information he got from Longo, we are left wondering just what that information was. We're not told, and if we're to surmise, there were no clues in the preceding hour. Nothing Longo told Finkel on screen up to that point could be construed as confessing to the murders and if he did as much in his writing to Finkel, we couldn't tell, because we weren't party to that content. Beyond a few frames in which we are presented with illustrated pages filled with moody and macabre images, which probably gave an insight into Longo's psyche, we can only speculate as to their written content, let alone the clues they supposedly presented. We are not shown enough of that content to put together the pieces of the puzzle. There was nothing substantive there. The audience might waver between guilty and not guilty, which means there was some drama, but this is not a psychological thriller with myriad twists and turns. Longo was playing mind games with Finkel, that's for sure, but if the former was the superior in terms of the psychological relationship, the latter was incredibly stupid. Neither the dialogue nor the acting built up that relationship to any effective level. The conversations between the two are well short of fascinating. We were left to assume that Finkel had been fooled, until the rather too obvious hint comes in through the disembodied voice of the Harper Collins publisher, who posed a leading question. This true story was nowhere near as interesting as it sounded. Finkel's tale of how he was taken in by Longo might be true, but it's pretty ordinary and if anything, damming of his professional ability. Far from being a journalist with a future, Finkel seems to have set a low standard and failed to achieve it. I pity anyone who's read the book.

True Story starring Jonah Hill and James Franco in a true fact drama based film, in which most would not assume by. Hill plays Mike Finkel, an ambitious young writer for the New York Times who's fired in 2001 after his bosses discover that he'd created a composite character for a Sunday magazine article on the African slave trade. Professionally disgraced, he retreats to the remote Montana home he shares with wife Jill (Felicity Jones), a rare book librarian. Unable to interest anyone in his story ideas, he becomes depressed until a caller asks for his reaction to the fact that Christian Longo, an Oregon man accused of killing his wife and three children, had been using his name while on the lam in Mexico.Scenes tend to pass by, where there tends to be a possible irresistible story as well as a way to redeem himself, Mike approaches the incarcerated Longo for a talk that quickly morphs into a deal: Longo will give him an exclusive if he'll agree to withhold publication until after the trial—and help him improve his own writing. What the audience watch in the film is quite a drama which showcases the lead actors dramatic acting chops. The film flows by smoothly, although it gets to a point where the film tends to become predictable, and where they could have included more for the audiences. However, knowing the film is based on true events, director Rupert Goold had his work set on him.

'True Story' explores a scary real-life incident & tries to make an awkward friendship tale out of it. Well, almost. And sadly, not all of it works, but with some powerful moments & Strong Performances going its way, the film scores on some levels.'True Story' Synopsis: When disgraced New York Times reporter Michael Finkel (Jonah Hill) meets accused killer Christian Longo (James Franco) - who has taken on Finkel's identity - his investigation morphs into a game of cat-and-mouse.'True Story' begins grippingly & you're invested in the journey of these two disgraced men, one far more than the other of course. But, the pace slackens as the narrative proceeds. The second-hour lacks the punch, although the goings-on become quite intense in its penultimate moments. Nonetheless, the Writing needed some stronger stuff.David Kajganich & Rupert Goold's Screenplay, which is Based on the memoir of the same name by Michael Finkel, is greatly Written in parts, but doesn't come across as solid overall. As mentioned earlier, the second-hour doesn't have the moments it should have. Rupert Goold's Direction is controlled & well-done. Cinematography is atmospheric. Editing is finely done.Performance-Wise: Jonah Hill is in very good form, yet again! Hill, now a versatile actor known by all, sinks his teeth into the part & enacts the disgraced man, with great maturity. James Franco is top-notch. His performance is so good, that you actually want to believe him & want him free of the heinous crime he's accused of. Felicity Jones, besides looking stunning, takes a terrific turn, as the morally strong minded woman.On the whole, 'True Story' isn't very engaging always, but the performances are.

***MAJOR SPOILERS*** Movie about the true story behind the notorious Christian Longo, James Franco, quadruple murder case in Portland Oregon that ex-New Times investigative reporter Michael Finkel, Jonah Hill,got deeply involved in. Finkel out of work after being canned from the New York Times for making up facts about a Times Magazine cover story about hunger in Africa is now out of work and living in Montana with his wife Jill, Felicity Jones. That's until he gets a call from a reporter from the newspaper "The Oragonian" about this accused murderer Christian Longo who was arrested in Mexico using his name as a cover.This leads Finkel to contact the local Portland D.A to arranger a meeting with Longo in prison and see what's the story about him using his name and, if he doesn't have enough problems already, connecting him with the murderers that he-Longo-is accused of. It turns out that Longo has followed Finkel's career and is very excited about his writing style and wants him to help him get out of jail by telling him the true story about his wife and three children murders; Which of course as Longo hints-with a number of red herrings-he had nothing, with the exception of his wife, at all to do with. Longo's story about his innocence seems to make sense with Finkel now getting a number of offers from book publishing firms to write it. In that only he's the one that Longo is willing to tell it to.****SPOILERS****Finkel soon realizes that there's something missing in Longo's story about his being innocent of his family's murders but by then he's in too deep and can't seem to get himself out. After getting burned in his BS story about starving African youths this story if found to be fake will just about destroy any hope he has to even get a job as a professional writer again. It's Jill who figured out what Longo was all about and after meeting him in prison compared him to a 17 century writer who like himself also murdered his entire family after catching his wife cheating on him! Which in Longo's case was a lot worse in the reason that he's accused in murdering his entire family was only due to financial problems. Finkel does in the end salvage his writing career in his book about Longo's crimes and how he was fooled by him but has to live the rest of his life in knowing what a shill he was in supporting Longo up until the very end when the true story of his crimes came to the surface. And as we see at the very end of the film Longo will always be with him to remind Finkel what a total jerk he was in believing him.