jmrecillas-83435 True story it's not a great film, since it's based on a true story about a reporter whose identity is stolen by a killer, and when he is get in touch with the murder starts a strange relationship in order to write a book about the crimes of his new and strange pal. The result is a book that names as the film: True story. As a movie storytelling, "True story" has no surprises, except the presence of James Franco and Jonah Hill, to whom many can relate more with dumb comedy that with a serious film about killers. The movie is quite plane, since there are no flashbacks or surprising twists that you can never imagine. What it makes so compelling is the acting. At first, Jonah Hill embodies a normal character, New York Times reporter Michael Finkel, who is in to an ordeal and a personal crisis when he faces Christian Longo, embodied by Franco, a killer arrested in Cancun, Mexico, deported to the US in order to be judged. Longo's character is first presented as a naive man who seems not to kill even a fly, but his evil character is gradually unfolded by a masterful James Franco impersonification, and in the end, that naive character of the beginning turns to be a real demon, and James Franco delivers a hell of a performing on the construction of such a character. Its so impressive what he does on screen that when you realize the very soul of the killer you are complete forget that you are no longer watching a comedy actor but a SERIOUS actor. This is a masterclass on acting. And that is what makes this film so unexpected. This film is all about acting, not about the script or any other circumstances. It's probably that many think that Franco as the killer its gonna be a poor and comic rendition of his character. NFW. This is one of his most impressive performances that leave you with such a horror felling inside that you can't believe the tour de force he is delivering on here. Acting on here is everything. The eveil on Longo's character remember other similar crime portrayal's such Hannibal Lecter or John Doe's Seven.Acting: 10 Filming: 5

Reno Rangan It was based on the book of the same name, which was originally inspired by the real events. But there's a striking resemblance between this and the Truman Capote story. About a man who is serving in prison for slaying a family and his encounter with a reporter/writer. And so their relationship strengthens as they sit together to discuss about each others life event. That is the main film, which covers the majority of the film, but feels like they revealed nothing much, particularly for our convince, yet the story moved forward.For the Truman Capote, there are two films, including the one I liked 'Infamous' and the other one is 'Capote'. Besides these two, there's another title called 'In Cold Blood' that reveals the other side of the event, before Truman enters the scene. So that's what I'm interested after watching this film. Because right now they preferred to portray a struggling writer and the crime parts were not given any importance. That means it is basically about a reporter/writer doing a story/book.If they decide to make that one with the same cast as a prequel, then James Franco gets into an action which probably would give a good reason behind such crime where in this film the viewers can't end watching surely what really happened. Both, Jonah Hill and James Franco was really impressive in this. Felicity Jones had the small presence, but was in a main role. It was a feature film debut for the director and he was well managed to make it decently. Overall, for me, it was a good film, not the best, but can be watched once.6/10

iainthepict I watched this movie without being aware, beyond the two-line summary on Sky Movies, of the real-life events it supposedly portrayed. Amusingly enough, echoing the theme of the film, the summary was a little liberal with the truth. Longo didn't steal Finkel's identity. It wasn't identity theft. Longo simply used Finkel's name. Also, the time-line of when Longo did that was a bit murky. I guess we have to assume he'd read Finkel's NYT articles, up to an including the one with that stretched the truth, before he absconded to Mexico. On the whole, this film failed to deliver, on several counts, despite keeping my attention 'til the end. I guess I expected more, and kept hoping... The film posits the idea that the two undoubtedly flawed men had something in common i.e., they both indulged in lying, but to suggest their 'sin' was somehow equivalent is preposterous. Longo's approach to lying seemed to be compulsive and manipulative, whilst Finkel made one mistake. There is no suggestion in the film that Finkel was a persistent liar and, therefore, the idea that there were such similarities between the two lacks credibility. Only one man spun endless webs of lies, and if this movie is about deception, Finkel isn't the major culprit. Finkel's one lie was made with the best of intentions, albeit he breached the ethics of journalism. His purpose was honourable and what he did amounted to little more than a white lie. Turning the plot on such a line is stretching a thin idea to breaking point. This film is supposed to be about relationships, but one at least wasn't fleshed out in any meaningful way. At first, I though Finkel's wife was his sister; their interactions being more platonic than romantic. Whatever relationship they had wasn't obvious, and when it deteriorated, as it seemed to do, there was nothing substantial on screen to illustrate why. I got the impression she was unimpressed by the amount of time Finkel spent with Longo, but apart from pained looks, there were no further clues, either in the dialogue or in the characterisation. Speaking of dialogue, the flattery to which Finkel succumbs is surely juvenile writing. OK, there's only an hour and a half in which to present the story, but seriously, are we to believe a grown man was taken in by Longo's schoolboy rhetoric? Then we're led to believe that Finkel swaps journalism tips for Longo's story, ostensibly getting behind his facade and uncovering the true story behind the brutal murder of his wife and children. But there are no journalism tips, bar advice to avoid double negatives and a couple of parlour games. That advice comes back into play later, during a courthouse scene, but if it's meant to be a figurative, revealing moment, it falls short of any profundity. In fact, it's an embarrassingly banal moment. The true story is that, far from being a hard-nosed, investigative journalist, Finkel comes across as a gullible idiot. This is a drama, but its twists and turns are pretty much contrived. After Finkel gets a twinge of conscience and agrees to let the policeman have the information he got from Longo, we are left wondering just what that information was. We're not told, and if we're to surmise, there were no clues in the preceding hour. Nothing Longo told Finkel on screen up to that point could be construed as confessing to the murders and if he did as much in his writing to Finkel, we couldn't tell, because we weren't party to that content. Beyond a few frames in which we are presented with illustrated pages filled with moody and macabre images, which probably gave an insight into Longo's psyche, we can only speculate as to their written content, let alone the clues they supposedly presented. We are not shown enough of that content to put together the pieces of the puzzle. There was nothing substantive there. The audience might waver between guilty and not guilty, which means there was some drama, but this is not a psychological thriller with myriad twists and turns. Longo was playing mind games with Finkel, that's for sure, but if the former was the superior in terms of the psychological relationship, the latter was incredibly stupid. Neither the dialogue nor the acting built up that relationship to any effective level. The conversations between the two are well short of fascinating. We were left to assume that Finkel had been fooled, until the rather too obvious hint comes in through the disembodied voice of the Harper Collins publisher, who posed a leading question. This true story was nowhere near as interesting as it sounded. Finkel's tale of how he was taken in by Longo might be true, but it's pretty ordinary and if anything, damming of his professional ability. Far from being a journalist with a future, Finkel seems to have set a low standard and failed to achieve it. I pity anyone who's read the book.

Eka Herlyanti It's hard for me to find this movie interesting. I didn't really get it. But yes, the opening seemed so promising. Not to mention the character of Christian Longo himself. He's some kind of crazy person or even a psycho, perhaps? He's so unpredictable. Looks stupid but turned out to be smart and so deceiving. This was actually so good, but I couldn't stop thinking that there was something missing. Why Longo chooses to use Finkle's identity was not so well explained. Maybe the dialogue which was not so strong. To me, the story was just not so well explored. This movie is based on a memoir of Michael Finkel. I usually love movies based on true story, but not this one.Sorry. I don't know. It's just not easy to grasp. I need to consult Wikipedia to fill the holes in my head.