- Sensibility: The truth of the story helps suspend disbelief, even in moments that feel impossible. Even with that in mind, a discussion with students and an argument about going to law school are still hard to accept for the rational mind.
- Cinematography: Production design and costuming are solid, even if largely derivative of every other film about reporters. The recreation of Stephen's false memories of the his articles is brilliant
and helps involve the viewer in the scheme. Editing is excellent and is the reason this film is such an easy watch.
- Energy: This is a prime example of how to pack a story into a tight run-time. Efficient, effective, and energetic. Glass's scheme is constantly unfolding, and just like the life of a reporter,
there are no breaks in the action.
- Narrative: Dialogue writing and character design for Stephen Glass and his two editors is great, but any other character, particularly the fabricated ones, struggle to define themselves in a realistic
way. Particularly bad is Chloë Sevigny's character, who is a glorified cheerleader. The is narrative structured with a telling of a story to some students. This is a bit messy in execution and introduces moments that feel out of order (why does the
discussion of the process for checking an article come so late in the film?). However, the reveal of an empty classroom redeems the artificial nature of the students and teacher and gives even greater insight into Stephen's character.
- T-Points: The film received two bonus points: one for a great scene where Glass is sweating, fumbling with excuses outside a restaurant and one for a reading of a list of article names in the ending.
Great, snappy story with an interesting lesson about charm, charisma, and great stories.
Number of Watches: 1
