I teach psychology and after seeing this film, I intend to use the film in my curriculum. Why? Well, because part of my class includes discussing personality disorders and often I show a film or TV show that clearly illustrates the popular notion of the "antisocial personality"--an individual with no conscience and who takes pleasure preying on others for his own gain. However, I really loved this movie because it illustrates a far more subtle type of antisocial--one who is not in prison or living life on the fringes due to his evil behaviors but is successful--wildly successful (at least, for a while).

The film is about Steven Glass--an actual ex-journalist with "The New Rebulic" and other publications. For some time, his career was rather meteoric--young, super-successful and well-respected. However, after years of success, it slowly became apparent that his "journalism" was actually a myth, as his sources were mostly fictitious. And, characteristic of an antisocial, he stood firm in insisting he was not a fraud and only slowly admitted "making mistakes" when he had no choice but admit the truth. Even afterwords, on 60 MINUTES, he often avoided taking responsibility for his actions and blamed it on practically everything but sun spots!

What I loved in particular about the film was how it sucked in the viewer and made you care. I think a lot of this was because instead of some actor who appeared jaded or slick, Hayden Christian (a.k.a. "Darth Vader") seems very young, likable and sweet and you don't want to believe he intentionally did anything wrong. And even when his lies began to come to light, his co-workers initially came to his defense--making excuses for Glass' "mistakes"--again, a sign that Glass was a master at manipulation. Evil, in most cases, is quite attractive or appears quite innocent--that is what makes this film a must-see.

After seeing this film I did a bit of research and found that the facts of the film are dead-on. As for Glass, he DID graduate from Georgetown Law School (a perfect career for an antisocial). I also discovered, to my regret (but no surprise) that he has inked a six-figure advance on a book--a work of "fiction" about a guy who, you guessed it, makes up stories to advance his journalistic career (sounds reminiscent of the O.J. book)! It's amazing how creeps like this always manage to land on their feet.

Stephen Glass (Hayden Christensen) is a young ace reporter for The New Republic. The magazine is heralded as the inflight magazine of Air Force One. Glass is personable and his stories are fabulously enticing. He expertly weaves his fables with panache. Chuck Lane (Peter Sarsgaard) is originally a reporter, but then gets elevated to editor. Chuck is the exact opposite of Glass. He is reserved, and stickler for the work. As a reporter, he struggles to keep up with Glass's flashier stories. As an editor, nobody trusts him. When Glass's article on computer hackers is questioned by an online publication, things spin out of control.

The true story is shocking. And the movie portrays it with realism. This is probably Hayden's greatest performance. He has the boyish charm that makes all those lies believable. But he also has a twitchy quality about him. It's also believable that he made up all those lies. This is infinitely better than the Star Wars debacle. Peter Sarsgaard has that quiet intensity that is perfect for his role.

The only thing I didn't like was the older lady at the end when she says that if only they had pictures.... That's not necessarily any solution. Pictures can be doctored just as easily. And pictures can distract any fact checkers. I don't know if somebody actually said that in real life. But it's one line that I'd rather cut out.

I think it's too bad that Hayden Christensen will always have the Star Wars movies hanging over him. It overshadows some good work in this movie. He needs to find these types of roles that can challenge his acting skills.

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.