Shattered Glass benefits from solid writing and brilliant acting. Its story revolves around a fascinating incident in journalism that’s worthy of a biopic. If only it was explored more thoroughly so that Glass’ motives were clear.

Solid ensemble cast and interesting story, but I thought the plot and its ending should have been a lot more developed and followed through.

I picked this up because of an interest in Hayden Christensen's other roles. Funny, it seems he wasn't able to escape his Starwars typecast with this one? Playing another highly capable youth with a troubled personality, ending with a downfall... I liked this actually as despite the previous comment, was compelling. Even though it feels kindof one dimensional towards the end.

Very good movie based on the true story of Stephen Glass fabricating stories when he worked as a writer for New Republic from 1995 to 1998. Hayden Christensen is good as Stephen Glass, but Peter Sarsgaard's performance as Chuck Lane is very good and even garnered him a Golden Globe nomination. Steve Zahn is also very good as the competitor who discovers that Hacker Heaven was a fictitious article. Chloë Sevigny and Melanie Lynskey were underutilized, so we did not know why their characters were so loyal to Stephen Glass (and to Hank Azaria's character, the former editor of New Republic, Michael Kelly). This is a difficult movie to give a rating to because it was very good in many ways yet felt like an incomplete movie in some ways.

Quite possibly one of the best Journalism movies out there. Hayden Christensen perfectly plays the manipulative innocent role extremely well while Peter Sarsgaard puts on an extremely well second half performance. Shattered Glass has writing and drama that is smart, logical, and gripping enough to please even average moviegoers. The film also questions and analyzes the problems with Journalism culture and integrity, problems that still haven't dated even today. Whether you are a Journalist or not, this is a must-watch.

The script is brilliantly written with one exception. The reason for Glass's past falsification of work is never explained. However, a terrific and wonderfully awkward performance from Hayden Christensen will distract you from this fact if you aren't looking for it.

Stephen Glass was just making stuff up for his articles...and it was working until someone fell upon his story about a phony hacker conference.

I want to make a wise crack about him liking sand and glass, since glass is made from sand. A missed opportunity here ... I'll just use the Padame meme: Anakin: "I fabricated that last article". Padame: "But the others you wrote were genuine". Anakin is silent. Padame: "The others were genuine, right?"

Fabulous movie. Well paced, well acted, thoroughly enjoyable.

Hayden Christensen's only good performance (with the exception of his minor role in "The Virgin Suicides").

Whether you heard of the subject matter, drawn by the topic or just for the beneficial star power, the film's utterly brilliant transitional capture is professionally thorough out of faithful respect and intellectually charismatic from dramatically expected performances generating nerve-whacking sympathetic pity towards ethical betrayal. (B+)

Shattered Glass is a very intriguing story focused on journalism that is weirdly intense sometimes. It is a pretty good movie with great performances, especially from Hayden Christensen.

By Far this is Hayden Christensen's Best Performance to Date. Compelling and great storytelling. Showing how Journalism can go from fact to actual lies.

This is excellent drama. It's truly fascinating to watch the reporter squirm as his story falls apart under examination.

It's a brilliant behind the scenes film on Journalism, beautifully written and directed by veteran Billy Ray. Hayden Christensen and Peter Sarsgaard deliver powerful Oscar worthy performances. Very surprise this movie didn't receive more accolades.

The telling of the true-life story of Stephen Glass, a young journalist who partially or totally made up stories for The New Republic magazine in the late 1990's and finally got caught was interesting enough, and the performances were good, more by the side characters than the star. But one is left with the impression that not enough was told. The movie starts with him giving a speech to a group of high school students under his old teacher, and such scenes are intercut throughout the movie. And Glass points out early in the story that while he wanted to be a journalist, his parents wanted him to become a lawyer or doctor, so he went to night school for law. Also pointed out is how the big boss fires one top editor he fell out with, to be replaced with a less popular replacement, adding to the complications. Glass writes an article about how a software company's system has been hacked into by a teenage boy, and the boy is hired by the company to handle its security. Trouble is, the new editor cannot find any record of the existence of the company or any of the people named in the article. The problem is, the movie fails to mention two things that should have been: how Glass got hired by The New Republic in the first place, and why Glass chose to fabricate stories. A story does not work too well when the bad guy is not given a motive.

[At 25, Stephen Glass was the most sought-after young reporter in the nation's capital, producing knockout articles for magazines ranging from The New Republic to Rolling Stone. The slight problem, was that he made all of it up. Sources, quotes, whole stories—in a staggering web of deception that emerged as the most sustained fraud in modern journalistic history.] The reason I've bracketed the above, is because I've done a Stephen Glass, copied and edited that paragraph and used it as my own. And before you watch the film and immediately start rooting suspiciously through all of my previous posts to check their credibility, let me just give you an even more questionable statement; Haden Christensen is really good in this film. The charisma vacuum of the Star Wars prequels, Christensen stunk out galaxies thankfully far far away for years, but his portrayal of Stephen Glass is so effective, it make him hugely irritating for all the right reasons. The story is fascinating, one I knew nothing about, and the supporting cast play off Christensen beautifully. This is really worth a watch, and it's fascinating that Glass was able to pull this off for so long, in an era just before it would have become impossible for him to do so.

Smartly written, emotionally manipulative and terribly underappreciated. "Shattered Glass" is a one of a kind masterpiece that is truly a sight to see. The main thing I want to point out before I get too far ahead is the writing. The writers figured out how to make the audience feel like both Hayden and Peter. The first feeling troubled, guilty and doing everything in their power to cover up all the lies they've told for the past 3-4 years. The other one knowing that they have been betrayed, lied to and "duped". The sheer revelation of such a heinous act slowly being revealed in front of you; to only see your work being thrown away with it. The actors give solid performances as well, nothing memorable, but definitely not bad. A lot of people like to point out Hayden Christensen's performance in this movie and say that its 'great', but I don't see it. I mean he acts and talks the same way in literally EVERY other movie he's in. Honestly, I think that is the reason why he doesn't utterly suck in this one. The role needs a stiff, emotionless, robot and he fits the bill perfectly. As for everyone else, there really isn't a single notable performance. From beginning to end, the writing does the heavy lifting and given the end result, that isn't a bad thing. All in all, Shattered Glass is a masterpiece and I'm dying to watch it again.

Shattered Glass is a nicely done film about the fragility of stories based on lies and how easily goodwill can be manipulated. The film deftly gets us to root for Stephen Glass and resent his editor Chuck Lane, especially for those who weren't familiar with his story. I was a journalism student at the time this all unfolded, but somehow it wasn't on my radar. The film rang true about the culture of journalism and what the editorial process was really like back in the day when journalists saw their job as reporting the truth, not providing "moral clarity." Of course I have to mention Hayden Christensen's performance for, uhm, reasons. I find him flat, and I was taken out of the film comparing his delivery of certain lines with the same rhythm and cadence as lines from the Star Wars prequels. His performance worked in this context, playing a pathetic and smarmy elite journalist, but it suffered for its comparison with Anakin Skywalker.

At the risk of sounding more dramatic than the movie itself, this was one of the worst produced, directed and acted movies I have ever seen. Not recommended at all.