Shattered Glass

Name: Shattered Glass
Genre: Drama, History
Released: October 31, 2003
Duration: 94 min
Rating: 73
Cast: Chloë Sevigny, Hayden Christensen, Steve Zahn

2003

METASCORE

Generally favorable reviews based on 38 Critic Reviews

See All

USER SCORE

Generally favorable reviews based on 32 Ratings

See All

7.7

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

7.7	Your Score
7.7	User Score Generally favorable reviews based on 32 Ratings

Would you like to write a review?

There is a 75 character minimum for reviews. If your review contains spoilers, please check the Spoiler box. Please do not use ALL CAPS. There is no linking or other HTML allowed. Your review may be edited for content. 0/5000

Check box if your review contains spoilers

Play Sound

Please enter your birth date to watch this video:

You are not allowed to view this material at this time.

Shattered Glass

Now Playing: Shattered Glass

Movie Details & Credits

Lions Gate Films | Release Date: October 31, 2003 | TV-14

Starring: Chloë Sevigny, Hayden Christensen, Steve Zahn

Summary: A study of a very talented - and at the same time very flawed - character. It is also a look inside our culture's noblest profession, one that protects our most precious freedoms by revealing the truth, and what happens when our trust in that profession is called into question. [Lions Gate Films]

Director: Billy Ray

Genre(s): Drama, History

Rating: TV-14

Runtime: 94 min

See All Details and Credits

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Metascore

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Critic Reviews

100

Owen Gleiberman

Presents Glass as a masterfully corrupt fabulist who convinced himself of the ultimate seductive lie, which is that there can't be anything wrong with telling people what they want to hear. Read full review

Dana Stevens

An astute and surprisingly gripping drama not only about the ethics of magazine writing, but also, more generally, about the subtle political and psychological dynamics of modern office culture. Read full review

Mike Clark

You get the sense that there's probably more to the story than you get here. But the movie's moral will soon be indelible: You just can't fake it in the Internet age. Read full review

Rene Rodriguez

By retelling Glass' pathetic tale, Shattered Glass reminds you how our culture's emphasis on success and stardom in any field -- and the betrayal of ethics to attain them -- has a cumulative, corrosive effect on society, no matter how small the stage may be. Read full review

Todd McCarthy

Credibly and absorbingly relates the tale of journalistic fraud perpetrated by young writer Stephen Glass at the New Republic five years back. Read full review

TV Guide Magazine Ken Fox

It's almost inconceivable how Glass could have gotten away with so much, but the movie makes a convincing case for how Glass used office politics, the good faith of his editors and his own personal charisma to get away with the worst offenses a journalist could commit. Read full review

Marjorie Baumgarten

Uses a wraparound story to provide a hint of Glass’ deep-seated pathology, but allows no details about how it came into being. Read full review

SEE ALL 38 REVIEWS

Write a Review

Negative:

User Reviews

BKopp

Aug 3, 2020

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. To form a character, who is both humble and bold is truly magnificent. Hayden’s role quiet disposition deceives the viewer, making him so lovable and seemingly innocent. The ending truly makes you dislike all opposing Glass.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

FranzHcritic

Jun 18, 2017

From watching the 'Star Wars' prequels, I, like many, came to the conclusion that Hayden Christensen's acting is as flat as the top of a plateau and more annoying than a pop up ad. But after viewing 'Shattered Glass,' I was wrong. He perfectly embodies the two-face personality of StephenFrom watching the 'Star Wars' prequels, I, like many, came to the conclusion that Hayden Christensen's acting is as flat as the top of a plateau and more annoying than a pop up ad. But after viewing 'Shattered Glass,' I was wrong. He perfectly embodies the two-face personality of Stephen Glass. Even with this remarkable performance, he's still overshadowed by Peter Sarsgaard's Chuck Lane,the unwavering editor who sought the truth and ended up exposing Glass. It's a well made bio that, while not being able to save Christensen's career, proves all of his haters wrong, like me.… Expand

3 of 3 users found this helpful30

LighterThings

Mar 29, 2012

The cast is what makes Shattered Glass the engaging film that it is. While it does somewhat follow the formula for a by-the-numbers biopic, it's the performances by a surprisingly captivating cast that makes the film so powerful. Special mention must be made of Hayden Christensen, who showedThe cast is what makes Shattered Glass the engaging film that it is. While it does somewhat follow the formula for a by-the-numbers biopic, it's the performances by a surprisingly captivating cast that makes the film so powerful. Special mention must be made of Hayden Christensen, who showed that he was much more than just a Canadian soap star / George Lucas' puppet. Christensen manages to effortlessly display the tension and terror of being "caught" in Glass' lies, and his portrayal of Glass' staunch refusal to ever admit to a lie is only amplified by Peter Sarsgaard's tenacious Chuck Lane, who only wants Glass to just admit to his mistakes. Shattered Glass isn't a perfect film, and may come off as boring to some, but if you enjoy performance pieces from an excellent cast, this film is definitely for you.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

Spangle

Sep 25, 2015

A truly compelling film about disgraced journalist Stephen Glass, Shattered Glass rides on the impressive performances of its cast and fantastic storytelling. The writing and direction from Billy Ray are both great and make for a fantastic film, but as I said, the real success here is theA truly compelling film about disgraced journalist Stephen Glass, Shattered Glass rides on the impressive performances of its cast and fantastic storytelling. The writing and direction from Billy Ray are both great and make for a fantastic film, but as I said, the real success here is the acting. Peter Sarsgaard steals the spotlight from the title character throughout with a fantastic performance as Chuck Lane, the new editor at The New Republic. However, Hayden Christensen is still phenomenal as Stephen Glass, while Chloe Sevigny, Steve Zahn, and Hank Azaria, are also all really good here. Billy Ray's debut feature, Shattered Glass is better than his follow-up to it, Breach, solely because this one never feels boring. Sure, the length helps with that, but it always manages to entertain, inform, and be an overall great watch. A very good film with A+ acting, Shattered Glass tells a cautionary tale about the loopholes that can be found in journalism.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

Compi24

Aug 26, 2018

Screenwriter Billy Ray's first directorial effort recounts the rise and fall of one of journalism's most promising up-and-comers, Stephen Glass, a New Republic writer who knowingly fabricated more than half of his works while at the noted news magazine. Spearheaded primarily by what I'veScreenwriter Billy Ray's first directorial effort recounts the rise and fall of one of journalism's most promising up-and-comers, Stephen Glass, a New Republic writer who knowingly fabricated more than half of his works while at the noted news magazine. Spearheaded primarily by what I've come to believe is far and away Hayden Christensen's best performance, "Shattered Glass" is a mostly fascinating glimpse into one of journalism's most jaw-dropping true stories, and the manner in which Ray relates and frames it is nothing short of the epitome of the cinematic long con -- holding the audience just within the realm of interest long enough to keep them around for when things really start to get amazing. And the final act is most definitely something of note.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

Doehl

Mar 25, 2012

The film is flashy, but the filmmakers are not getting inside their character's brain at all and rather focus more on the dull procedures of editing in corporate magazines.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

DawdlingPoet

Nov 27, 2021

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. First off, as a movie, particularly as its a true story, its all about just that, the story. There's no real visual effects or anything along those lines to keep you watching, instead its the character of Stephen Glass that the movie is focussed on, him and the reaction of those around him, both as loyal colleagues and competitors in his profession, who slowly become aware of inconsistencies to his latest story, although the ultimate extent of this is whats probably most shocking.

I found it interesting watching the reacion of his colleagues at the paper, as they discussed what may happen to him - the comeraderie and loyalty they showed towards him and later on we also see that there was some hesitation shown by the paper, not by Stephens direct boss but by management who were quite cautious about outrightly firing him for fear that this would spark resignations by others and could lead to the downfall of the paper - again this may make you wonder what goes on, what information people may be sitting on - as far as the papers may be concerned, all that matters is that they have a successful business in terms of units sold and profits earned - the way thats suggested to deal with Stephens fabrication(s) being essentially a case of a harsh telling off and lost income for a fair amount of time but no real loss of career. Having said this, if this seems like a spoiler it isn't entirely as this isn't what the ultimate outcome is for?.

Its interesting to see some of the tactics used as people look into the validity of his story which led to obviously action being taken - there's one scene involving multiple journalists repeatedly phoning a number supposedly belonging to the software company that the report in question centres on - considering it had been established through multiple searches online and phoning up phone directory services that the company didn't seem to exist, it was taken with great scepticism that said number was genuine, so they phone in such a way to try and determine whether or not the recipient has multiple phone lines (which is an indication as to whether its a genuine business phone number or not). As the movie winds down, we see Stephens demeanour change, whereas before he was clearly quite comfortable with what he'd done, quite in control thus he didn't seem too worried about being found out but as things unwind, he tries to maintain the same persona but he clearly has to work harder behind the scenes.

Equally there's another interesting reaction by the paper who order staff to double, no triple or even quadruple (I forget which) check every single report for grammatical error (the over-use of comma's being the main one mentioned) before letting them go to press. Its ironic perhaps, concentrate on the look and layout of the piece almost religiously but what about the validity of the claims in it?. Stephen seems to be very much involved in his career, his profession, he doesn't have a partner or children from what I remember, although its indicated that he has feelings for his assistant/colleague Amy. He pretty much looks the part of a journalist and seeing him speak in front of a class of presumably wannabe journalists, he seems in his element. Image seems to be quite a big consideration, earlyish on in the movie the journalists working for the paper are encouraged to come forward with more stories that will help keep the paper going, as there was a fear that it was possibly becoming outdated, with the internet generation pushing through (the movie is set in 1998 I believe - its funny to see shots of the old Yahoo search engine and old CRT monitors in use back then - it does look pretty outdated now) and there being a worrying feeling that the paper is still stuck in the 1980s and may become rather obsolete.

Back to the movie and I'd say that its perhaps a bit bland - really its all about the story, the performances are decent enough (side note - Hayden Christensen playing Stephen looks almost like Harry Potter with those glasses!) and its watchable, its not overly long at about an hour and a half running time, though its not the sort of movie that I feel really 'pulled me in' - its not particularly suspenseful or thrilling, or I suppose even entertaining maybe... it depends, its a movie that if the story and the questions it poses is something your really interested in then its worth a watch, you know the usual pretty much. I wouldn't say its a bad movie per se, infact I think in a way its a movie that needed to be made for the questions it raises about self regulation in the press and suchlike - given its remit to tell a true story and to make you think, it does that quite well but as an all-out engrossing big Hollywood blockbuster, eh, that its not, I think its fair to say (not that it necessarily should be one of those but all the same.).… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

SEE ALL 7 REVIEWS