...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.

Stephen Glass, genially portrayed by Hayden Christensen, most known as Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader in the two last Star Wars movies, is a 24-year old star journalist at The New Republic, and all his articles are entertaining its readers. He has a great life, he enjoys his job and he gets frustrated if he believes somebody is mad at him. But so far, he is happy. However, what nobody could ever imagine is that he has a secret. Chuck Lane, who is the editor, finds out the truth after the last article Steve wrote, Hack Heaven, lacks real sources and he starts to question him. It turns out that Stephen has fabricated more than half of his articles and it became the end of his journalist career.

It's an incredible story, a story that you would never believe about a fact-checked magazine, but that you know would happen in all "the other" gossipy magazines. This is just a unbelievable story that is portrayed by unbelievably great actors. You will just end believe in everything that read on newspapers, magazines, everything. You will also start feel sorry for Steve, despite everything. Stephen Glass had a potential, all his stories had potential, but don't believe in anything just because they are entertaining... they can be fictional.

What does not make sense is why Stephen Glass did not become an author instead of journalist for a popular magazine? Well, he wanted a little attention, he wanted fame, and he got it, but it also became the end of his career. The irony is that he has received his law degree and his first novel, that ironically is about a fictional story of a journalist who fabricated over half of his articles, has been published recently. The movie just made me think: What do you know about your friends, your parents, your siblings, your employees, your partners, your bosses? They can perhaps have any secret that you just couldn't ever imagine... just because they are such great people, so clear in their minds. But what I can say is that you will never judge people by their looking, character and personality... never judge them by their lies, secrets and what they have done, too... don't judge people at all. Just don't believe everything they say or write.

By now it doesn't surprise me that individuals like Stephen Glass exist, but seeing what he was capable of in this story proves what an amoral and manipulative person he was. Even more compelling was the way he was able to enlist co-workers to support him in his deception while more than allowing for his so called 'mistakes'. "So he got a little sloppy and he lied to cover his tracks" was the way Caitlin Avey (Chloë Sevigny) argued Glass's (Hayden Christensen) case to New Republic editor Charles 'Chuck' Lane (Peter Sarsgaard ), as if that was proper justification and an explanation why the guy shouldn't be fired. Glass was an accomplished liar who could do it with a straight face, believing he could bluff his way back into employment with New Republic, and failing that, attempting to fish for a job with former editor Michael Kelly (Hank Azaria) at another magazine. The arrogance and chutzpah coming from someone so outwardly talented and 'normal' was indicative of an anti-social personality who's only thought was how he could benefit from the deception he inflicted on others. I can't even imagine how the present day Stephen Glass conducts his law practice, the guy can bend the truth like a pretzel, twisting and flaking facts until they're no longer recognizable. A minor surprise coming out of this picture was the identity of Chuck Lane, mentioned in the closing credits as working currently for the Washington Post, but also a regularly appearing contributor and panelist on Fox News. It would be great to get Lane's thoughts directly about his association with Glass and how he saw through the subterfuge.