TCFHE, True Story

SPOILERS, SPOILERS,This film was very cleverly written to be almost like two movies.The first is a very watchable, straightforward crime drama the audience can just kick back and enjoy.The second revolves around the intricately written script and cleverly placed clues designed to make the viewer obsess about the corresponding time lines of exactly when Finkel got fired, and if Longo knew before he murdered his family and fled to Mexico.A seemingly average family man, Chris Longo, kills his wife and 3 children, flees to Mexico and uses the identity of a prominent young journalist for the New York Times, Mike Finkel.If we pay close attention, we start to see how tight the timelines of the two occurrences are, and how important the dates of Longo's murders and Finkel's firing are to revealing the truth of why Longo murdered his family AND the depth of his depravity.We learn how closely Longo follows Finkel's writing and possibly had access to the NYT at Starbucks where he worked part-time as barista. We see Finkel pull a Times newspaper out of his mailbox where the retraction and apology for his falsification of facts in a recent feature story is on the front page.Disgraced and a pariah, after his public firing, Finkel has retreated to the quiet of winter in the remote Montana home he shares with his wife. We see him on the phone pitching story ideas, but with no takers by any of his former colleagues in publishing. Longo had been living in Oregon with his wife and 3 young children, in a small ocean town.Finkel is confused when he answers a call from a reporter with largest newspaper in Oregon, asking for a response to why a seemingly unremarkable family man, suddenly murders his wife and 3 children, flees to Mexico, and uses Finkel's identity?Finkel, sees a chance to reestablish his career and ends up meeting with Longo and beginning a relationship interviewing him for a lucrative book deal.I think the real tension in the film comes from the sort of cat and mouse game between Longo and Finkel, with no mistake about who is the cat and who is the mouse.We see Finkel's naivete, when his elitist background allows him the fatal mistake of grossly underestimating Longo's sophistication and expert ability to lie and manipulate. Finkel never had a chance, it was like a cheetah taking down an antelope. We knew Longo was going to ruin Finkel, we just didn't know how completely he would be digested.Finkel asked the big question of the reporter from the Oregonian Newspaper, who contacted Finkel about the story, and told him Longo was using his name. "Why did [Longo] claim to be me?" The audience will see, "when" Longo began would have been the important question. Did Longo know of Finkel's firing BEFORE he murdered his wife and children?If we knew WHEN, and why Longo started using Finkel's identity, we would be able to understand just how diabolical he really was, why he snapped and murdered his wife in a "vicious frenzy," and finished the job by throwing their three young children off a bridge into a freezing river in the dark of night.Longo had little formal education, and appeared to be rather unsophisticated. Finkel seemed very surprised when Longo reveals he used Finkel's name because he loved his writing followed his career, and had read almost everything Finkel had written.The script was extremely brilliant the way it left clues all along the way, hinting at the two timelines, Finkel's Firing and Longo's Murders.We know the murders were on December 17th, but we don't know the exact date Finkel got fired. More to the point, when the retraction and apology appeared in the Times. We knew by clever dialogue, and other hints that Finkel's article was likely in print before Christmas. In Finkel's first letter to Longo, he states that he "lost' his name at "the exact same time" Longo fled to Mexico, and began using Finkel's name.The screenwriter very cleverly brings you close, but never lets you find the exact timeline.It must have the dates in the book, but the way the screenwriter peppered the script with hints, was genius. It kept me watching the movie frame by frame the second time.Longo told Finkel that when he was living as Finkel, was the happiest time of his life.If he had just decided to use Finkel's identity when he fled to Mexico, and he was apprehended in one day, then Longo's statement above really doesnt make sense. It sounded like he had been using it longer than that.We knew Longo was apprehended his FIRST night in Mexico, because Finkel had found out that Longo slept with the German tourist the FIRST night. We see a scene in Longo's hotel room, where the girl is asleep, and Longo is standing calmly on the balcony of his second floor hotel, while swarms of police cars are pulling up down below.I think Longo could have been living as Finkel in his mind for a while. He obviously hated his real life, lying, stealing, and trying to support a family as a barista. An internal fantasy life may have been the only way he survived reality. Maybe he even pretended around strangers in a bar or elsewhere.If he had been living internally as Finkel for a while, reading about Finkel's firing would likely have shattered his "happy" fantasy life.Why did the forensic evidence of his wife's murder indicate it was a "viscous frenzied act?" Why did he decide to come clean about their financial ruin at that time? I think the news about Finkel unleashed the rage usually hidden by the "remote" exterior which caused the confrontation resulting in murder.It could be why he told his boss at Starbucks, his wife "left him" for a reporter. He felt like they were both gone.He DID tell Finkel he read about his firing in the Times. He almost had to have read it before he went to Mexico. Would he have found that issue of the Times in the one day he spent in Tiajuana? Would he have had access to that newspaper in jail?Witness testimony revealed Longo was still in town for a couple of days after the murders, he had time to realize he could use Finkel's name when he fled to Mexico, knowing he was going to get caught, (notice his calm posture on the balcony in Mexico when the cops swarmed up one floor below) and counting on Finkel, disgraced over the loss of his career, to almost certainly hear about it and be salivating over the possibility of writing the story.In fact, later, during his testimony at the trial, Longo purposely sends a private message to Finkel, sitting in the courtroom, that he is not the rube Finkel took him to be. But in the process, unwittingly reveals himself as a true monster when he calmly recounts the details of how he suffocated his 3 year old daughter, expecting the jury to believe it was an act of love. The silence in the courtroom was deafening. It causes me to wonder if he could have even been capable of deciding to murder his kids to make the story even more sensational to add insurance that Finkel would look him up.Another chilling thought is that he wanted out of his life, but realized he would still be a "nobody," and killing his family would at least bring him notariety. Or worse, he could have planned to sacrifice his family for a long time, as part of a ice cold, calculated scheme to become someone else, and Finkel presented himself.I think Longo's obsession with wanting to learn to write, was more about actually wanting to BECOME Finkel, and not just in his mind, after his plans to destroy what was left of Finkel's credibility and his career were complete.When he told Finkel how happy he was impersonating Finkel, he also asked Finkel if he could ever imagine being HIM.

Strong performances by Joanah Hill and James Franco highlight this unusual and intriguing tale.

This movie has an odd beginning--almost stopped it, but since it is based on a true story, we watched it. It does keep your attention, then the ending is odd, again. Did some followup on the story and it makes it really interesting. It is about murder and media.

This film was very well-done and an interesting piece in that the two leads, while proven in serious roles separately, haven’t, to my knowledge, ever acted together in serious roles together. This is no raunchy comedy, but played dead-serious and it delivers a compelling story with solid performances.BUTSpoilers follow, beware.The fact that this is based on a true story - I am not sure if this is art imitating life or the other way around - does not mean it’s “original” in the body of cinematic storytelling.If you feel like you’ve seen the idea before, you probably have, albeit in a fictional story based on a novel. It’s essentially a true-crime Primal Fear. But don’t be deterred but this if you enjoy the genre - there’s a lot to like here.

I love true to life stories and I love jonah hill as an actor. You will not be disapoionted.

Definitely not your typical Jonah hill movie. I didn’t know anything about the movie except that Jonah hill was in it, so I thought it would be a comedy. But he does a good job acting in a serious role. But I just wasn’t a fan of the movie itself. Not my type of movie. But acting was good, so if you are interested in this movie then I would recommend it.

Super interesting

The movie is pretty good and worth watching.

No es mala la película, pero no es a lo que estoy acostumbrado a ver sobre Johan Hill, para ese estilo de trama, quedó a deber más, a un así no me arrepiento de adquirir la

This has to be one of the most hard movies I had ever watched. Maybe because (it based on a real life event) and or because before watching this movie I watched the (48 Hours segment of what this thing did to his wife and those beautiful little kids) I say "thing" because it hard to believe that a man would do such harm to his own babies and his wife and for what??

I heard a lot of rave reviews from friends about this film but I just didn't think it was that interesting. I loved seeing Jonah Hill and James Franco in serious roles and they are both very good but it wasn't a very memorable film to me. Yawn.

Both lead actors are excellent in their role. Jonah Hill's performance is truly great. It's the first drama role I've seen him perform and I think he is better at it than in comedy.

I soon forgot that Tom Hardy was playing a dual role.Amazing talent well beyond expectations.Heartily recommend this wonderfully made film.