Taking the movie as it was it was actually pretty good. Now of course I'm not saying there weren't any flaws, but I feel that the flaws were only more analyzed and picked apart more because the two main characters are comedians at their core. But I digress.
I chose to try to forget that they weren't comedians, which was actually harder than I thought I must admit. But eventually I was just like you know what I'll take it as they are actors instead, because some comedians are able to do something a little seriously. But then again Franco is always that crazy guy and it was a little cringe worthy(okay cringe worthy) but I thought he got across a very good manipulator kinda vibe.
But before we move on to the first main character, something must be said about this movie. The movie is based on a true story of a writer named Michael Finkel, who did come across this criminal named Christian Longo, and was discredited for something he wrote for New York Times. Of course the rest of the movie and how accurate it is I'm not very sure. Based on my research, basically the first act and the last were really true to the core of the true story. But I digress and wish to move on.
Let's look at this based on the story line. The story line is quite good and it actually shows us how much a criminal can manipulate a story or anyone can, while keeping in tact some truth to the fact of the real story. Sound familiar much? But anyhow I don't like how rushed the third act is that it becomes a little obvious which route they would take, they kind of double back like that kind of Shamalyn's "what a twist!" moments, but still begs the question of whether there was any truth to the stuff Longo tells Finkel and even Finkel says that most of his story is not really on the murder but instead on Longo's life which is actually very true as we get very little of the murder because that was the plot and we never really look into that but instead got the verdict that we still ponder about which is actually not very good because if you have too many questions it also hurts the reputation of the movie
So the murder questions should have been answered and since it wasn't it actually does a good job trying to distract us from that fact with Longo's complicated story and psyche. But I guess they were trying to say hey, this is really how Longo tried to explain it. And in the end the last question is really absolutely great, which is what is left of Finkel because he did spend a lot of his muse and inspiration on a criminal and that's the true story that he actually desired for never really thinking about it because before that time he was a great author of a very published paper and he had a lot of awards for it,
And so, all in all this is a movie with a lot of flaws but does try to stay within the source material, and while most likely they did take a little artistic ploy here and there but, nonetheless it's still pretty good. I like the pace except for the final third. The plot and the story lines don't really add up but I guess that's the appeal, while it may have scored a 45% on Rotten Tomatoes and a 6.3 on IMDB, I still feel that the reviews may have had a problem with the cast as the main ones they couldn't really take serious since Franco so obviously can't take a serious action scene even if he's the Green Goblin, but surprisingly, Jonah Hill, is quite convincing, yes, I will go on record saying that. But for what it is which is an experiment basically from Jonah Hill and Franco to see if they can do a serious film and a source material that looks shadowed in a lot of other media related things, it's still enjoyable trying to push on how to question, the whole truths.