itself, everyone played their roles brilliantly. I was extremely impressed with Jonah Hill's performance as Mike, very very strong. He gets better each time I see him and Felicity Jones had a small role but nailed it.Before, we get to Franco's Oscar winning performance, whom I'm a huge fan off gosh was he creepy in this film or what and would have made the ideal Joker for DC , there was some clarifications that other reviews have mentioned that I thought I should address:1. Why was the film called "True Story", it's a boring title for the film? Well, as I mentioned previously, it's based on a book called "True Story" by Michael Finkel, plus within the film itself Mike mentions that he was thinking of calling it "True Story".2. The writing/pacing was poor - in my opinion the writing/pacing of the film was just perfect, this is based upon again, on a true story, they couldn't go too over the top, it's not a blockbuster film and I liked the uniqueness of how it was handled. Also, the real Mike viewed this film once completed and stated, it did the book justice and both Hill and Franco magnificently nailed their characters. In fact, Franco appeared spot on throughout, in particular the Court Trial scene that it generally frightened him and he was indeed part of the production, actually part of that particular scene in the film and it only apparently took one take to achieve as the director also confirmed.I have to take his word on this than the critics hating on this excellent film, who I feel always have an agenda for Franco's films etc. to fail and by reading most of their reviews have never probably read the book in the first place or undergone a background story check.Note: I see a lot of positive reviews haven't been added to Rotten Tomatoes also always with a Franco film .3. Some, have claimed it was too dull or had no big surprises, especially no kick-ass ending etc. I repeat, it is based on a true story, what do you mean it was dull? The murders were extremely gruesome and unfortunately very real to see and even, if you didn't know the back story behind this film, seeing the child in the case with the teddy bear at the start of the film and the Court Trial photo's, plus the creepiness and calmness of how Chris was played, basically, not knowing whether he was telling the truth or not kept me seriously hooked.Especially, the desperation of Mike to believe him at first seriously, what type of man still keeps in touch with a killer greed and that "Wink" what an evil so and so. By the way, the "Wink" is also clearly explained in the film, not sure why some people don't understand the meaning and was a big enough surprise for me, as well as many others, which was very small but important moments to drive the film forward. As, for the kick-ass ending that some wanted. It was demonstrated perfectly, I think any sane person would wish the real Chris would disappear of the face of this earth but I repeat again it was based on real life events, so I don't see a problem it was exciting enough . If they went over dramatic with the ending some people would still complain that they called the film true story but the ending was false. Every crime drama or film noir thriller can't be the same, I liked this was different. 4. Rip-off of books/films Primal Fear, The Silence of the Lambs, Seven, A Few Good Men the Court Trial scene as in Franco's performance was as strong as re Jack Nicholson in that film and in particular In Cold Blood etc. I repeat again, this is a "True Story" based on "FACTS THAT HAPPENED" and people died, so it's not a rip-off of the films that I mentioned, but as a sick and masterful classic told on film as them.Franco's performance was extraordinary to witness, one of his best performances ever that he has played and we know James Dean, Pineapple Express, Milk, Howl, 127 Hours and Spring Breakers etc. are already classics . Hands down, truly deserving of many awards for this performance alone I hear, I Am Michael film is pretty special also by Franco , especially, in my opinion an overdue Oscar win. He had me feeling sorry for him, hating him, and many other emotions real nightmare performance and a classic . This movie no matter what the initial critical response is and box office numbers are will become a classic and Rupert Goold as a first time director and his team undertook this task brilliantly only wish there wasn't real victims involved makes emotions even more mixed . A must watch for true crime and film noir lovers not suitable for children .

horrible things he is accused of. This is a flat out amazing movie. The acting is great, as expected, but the fact that this is a true story makes it that much more engrossing. You spend the entire movie wondering, as Mike does, about Christian's story. One minute you think he is innocent, and the next you think he's guilty. The constant flip flopping last until the very end of the movie and that also keeps you absorbed in what you are watching. This is a movie I could go on and on about but I will just end with watch this. Right now. Overall, a flat out terrific movie that will keep you engrossed and involved all the way to the end. I absolutely loved it. I easily give this an A+.

characters in the film This is a movie about deception involving characters that fabricate the truth to incredible lengths and spin endless webs of lies. One character to a lesser extent to the other, but I found it interesting how this film portrayed the similarities between these two men. The story is brilliantly woven, and extreme attention to detail is paid. The cinematography is beautiful, the acting is solid, this is just all around an exceptionally well made film. It's tragic, yet very thought provoking. The main two complaints I heard in critical reviews were that the film lacked suspense, and that it was a whole lot of buildup with no payoff. The no payoff criticism concerned me the most, as I can't stand movies like that, and that criticism seemed to be the biggest people were making. Realize going in, this is a psychological drama/thriller. I personally was riveted and in constant psychological suspense, but there isn't any real physical suspense throughout the film. The suspense comes from a psychological place, falling victim to the constant mind games, and not knowing what the truth really is. And as for the biggest criticism, that there wasn't any payoff, I couldn't disagree more. I'd like to ask these critics to their face - how much more payoff are you looking for? Given the details of the true events, there isn't any more payoff that could have been provided, in fact, I felt the payoff of this film to be big. It was a psychologically riveting experience that provided a lot to think about long after the end credits rolled.

defiance of the intense pressure that was being applied to both men to end their communications, the friendship evolves. It occurs in stages. The details of how it happens and how it effects both men is what this movie is about. Jonah Hill and James Franco are outstanding in their respective roles as the journalist and the mass murderer. For further details, watch the movie.

have awesome chemistry! LOVE this movie! If you are looking for action or comedy, you will not like this because it is all dialogue. I give it a 9 stars because it was such a great movie!

Michael travels to prison to meet and talk with Christian, who he is stunned to find is a soft-spoken, frightened soul with a story to tell of his own. After learning of Christian's own personal perspective of the murders, Michael begins to write a book on him, finding himself caught between a wedge of believing Christian's story but also looking at indisputable facts of the case.Right off the bat, it's odd to see both Jonah Hill and James Franco in a film together and not creating a raunchy, ribald atmosphere. While both men have ventured into drama before especially Franco, who is, dare I say, the most diverse actor in Hollywood , having these two men work together and not drum up any laughs is a strange thing to note. However, this fact becomes less apparent when we remember, and it only takes moments to do so once the film begins, how great Hill and Franco are at playing complex, layered dramatic roles. Hill's straight-forward seriousness combined with Franco's mannered eloquence creates a story that works from the start on the basis of actor chemistry and effectiveness alone.The film bears a strong resemblance to Truman Capote's book "In Cold Blood," as we watch a journalist get so invested in the lives of a murderer who winds up developing tunnel vision so narrow that he can't see the obvious guilt and manipulation around him. Michael becomes wrapped up with finding out who Christian really is as a person, enthralled by his perspective, which has been muted by what seems to be sensational headlines and news reports, that he simply wants to get to the heart of his subject. Yet, when we see a family completely broken and another telling his side of the story, not really justifying his actions nor explicitly denying them, we become entangled in a web of conflicting testimonies.To respond to "True Story" in a manner of confusion is only natural; if anything, you're exhibiting conflicting attitudes the real life Michael Finkel probably did when he met Christian Longo and spoke with him over time. The film subtly answers the questions of truth and examines how perspective and stories, when told rather than pushed aside or muted, do not justify an entire situation, especially one so heinous, but work to complicate it and leave no questions easily answered. We become just as entangled as Michael, and when the film ends, ostensibly without progressing a whole lot, we find ourselves left to our own vices in terms of how we analyze what we just watched."True Story" is destined to be one of the most underrated and misunderstood pictures of the year, and the latter because of the fact that there are going to be a barrage of ways one can digest this film. Some have criticized the film for seemingly rooting for the redemption of Christian before doubling back in the concluding trial scenes, yet consider how Michael views him throughout the entire film. He clearly wants the man to redeemed if he had done anything wrong, and tries to believe that he has a troubled, deeply confused soul in his company. However, facts catch up and it is then we realize what we're dealing with, and that's one of the reasons "True Story" is so special; it leads us one way, gets us believing one thing, before calling us on our bluff and letting our guard down.

you're expecting comedy. What's interesting about True Story is that Hill and Franco are playing the archetypes that you'd expect from them, and because of this, the movie could have easily worked as a comedy. It was Hill and Franco doing what you seen them do a million times in comedies but doing it in a drama piece. It does not make the movie better it may have done better if they made it a comedy , but it made the movie more interesting.Both men did a fine job with the material, it was well acted by everyone involved. I would recommend giving it a shot.

explored this option. Did the lead character, who the story is based on, really have no one to defend him; and perhaps, this trial should have been a miss-trial. I believe that the story is not complete, and that is exactly what makes it a good story, because in life, mostly we live incomplete narratives based on judgements from others.