This is an ambitious film and is successful in everything it sets out to accomplish. Glory does not rely on the visual aspects to accomplish its perfection, but rather it relies on the emotional to convey its message and humanity. This is a film that managed to get some of the best actors of our time, as well as, withdraw from these actors their best abilities. While the film does show the realities and horror of war, especially when it involves good people thrown in, it captures the viewers attention by making us empathetic, as opposed to simply sympathetic. The score of the film is done by the brilliant James Horner, which compliments the film, but at times envelops the film completely. Director Zwick shows the various levels of humanity, one scene can display the blunt bravery of these men, and yet the next scene reminds us how scared and how human these men are. I wish I could write a paragraph on each actor, but I must mention Matthew Broderick, Morgan Freeman, Denzel Washingtion, Andre Braugher, Cary Elwes, and Jihmi Kennedy. The characters of this film are wonderfully well-developed and the relationships between these men adds a dimension that is rarely seen in modern films. Each performance is Oscar-calibur, overall, this is a film that should now be ranked as a classic for all time. Simply amazing.
Add a Review
-
soapfan849 September 2004
-
reve_12123 December 2004There are few military films which allow us, the viewer, to explore our feelings and emotions on the total war experience. Glory, Patton, The Longest Day, explore and create great emotional value. Many more try to cash in on our emotional appeal as a commodity. Yeah, we'll watch Braveheart, Saving Private Ryan, The Patriot, Black Hawk Down, etc.,, and i hate to blasphemy these good, visually effective movies, but Glory is not out to exploit those senses. I love a good blow up movie, except not the actual movie BlowUP. Regards to Antonioni.
Now take two anti-scenes as i like to call them. Denzel getting whipped. Kills me every time, those eyes of his, staring at Col. Shaw. Hate filled. The other "colored" soldiers are standing around watching not in acceptance as soldiers, but in acceptance as a sort of slave to the union. And we're wondering, will they be upset. Will the black soldiers try to leave again. Will they rise up in anger. There is a not only misunderstanding between the officers and the enlisted, but an absolute distrust. The officers are equal to the slave owners.
My anit-scene is much later in the film. The soldiers have gathered around a fire and are praying to God, before battle. No imagery, just total emotion. Praising the Lord they know. Asking and praying, But not a single dissent about serving in the white man's army now. The have formed a proud military unit. Something most of us will never understand. And there is my emotional experience. Something i never imagined was part of the Civil War. The truth is I am compelled to feel too many emotions while watching this film. I would recommend this to anyone. and especially to those in the south. -
FrankBooth_DeLarge1 February 2005If you think about it, most war movies are about WWII and there aren't as many movies about the Civil War. I haven't seen Gettysburg, but I did see Gods and Generals, and believe me that wasn't all that great. The best Civil War movie I've ever seen is Glory. The movie has an excellent cast which includes Mathew Broderick(only three years after he was in Ferris Buellers Day Off), Denzel Washington, and Morgan Freeman.
I first saw this in my eight grade history class when we were learning about the Civil War. This movie has a great score and it really captures the feel of the Civil War through its battle scenes. For those of you who only watch war movies to see people getting their heads blown off, this is the wrong movie for you. This movie focuses on the characters and what they're going through. Despite having a long running time, the result of this movie is an entertaining and well made war movie.
You should only buy this movie if you really like it, because it gets a little bit slow the second time you see it. Either way, I'd say you should watch this movie to see what quality war films are all about. -
WindWoman35 June 2004"Glory" is a modern film classic that highlights a little-known chapter of the Civil War.
I recently purchased the DVD, and was just as moved (if not more so) as the first time I saw it.
Broderick, Freeman, and Washington, along with a stellar cast play it faultlessly. I still remember the brouhaha over the casting of Matthew Broderick as Shaw, and I see that even now some IMDb posters single him out for fault in "Glory." Sorry, but I disagree. One should remember that the real Col. Shaw was a young man in his mid-20s - hardly a grizzled old veteran - despite his high rank. Broderick actually does bear a resemblance to Shaw, and shouldn't be criticized for his boyish looks. I felt every nuance of the burden he carried, and thought Broderick did a wonderful job.
Denzel Washington's powerful acting may never again have a showcase like it did in "Glory." His beauty, rage, and pride scream in every frame. His Oscar for this break-out role was highly deserved. Trip's character is really the distillation of what this film is all about: the black man's heart-rending battle for worth, recognition, and dignity. As far as I'm concerned no one BUT Washington could have played Trip. Thank God for Denzel!
Morgan Freeman is the film's human core. His quiet compassion and leadership keeps the soldiers focused. His one angry confrontation with Trip proves he has the goods to back up a field promotion to Sergeant Major.
Freeman (an appropriate reminder of where surnames come from) is the father figure the regiment desperately needs in a time of death and crisis. The men look to him for his calming wisdom and reasonable, fair demeanor.
Films like "Saving Private Ryan" raised the technical bar for battle scenes.
The fighting scenes in "Glory" are, unfortunately, it's weakest element. The staging and choreography are mediocre at best. And other than a scene where the 54th Massachusetts is given a hero's flanking onto the battlefield beaches of South Carolina, these shots don't emotionally engage the viewer. Still, in the end, "Glory" isn't about big, noisy battles. It's about the transcendence of the human spirit in the face of bigotry, bad treatment, and almost certain death. It's about a watershed moment in our bloody history that elevated us all and must never be forgotten.
"Glory" is, indeed, glorious. -
To be quite honest, I had low expectations for "Glory." It was just another boring day at school sitting in my history class drawing random drawings in my notebook. Suddenly my teacher says we're going to watch a movie. I wake up from my dreamy state and I decide I'll give it a chance. He loads the VCR tape into the machine and I fix my eyes upon the screen.
I will put "Glory" into a few words--this is what every war movie strives to be and beyond. Glory tells the story of a Civil War colonel (Matthew Broderick) who leads the war's first all-black volunteer regimen into battles and discovers along the way he has to confront the moral question of racial prejudice within, and outside of, his regimen.
So as I'm sitting in history class watching "Glory," I immediately begin to perk up. From the explosive first scene, I was fully awake. My luck skyrocketed when I discovered two of my all-time favorite actors in the film, Morgan Freeman and Denzel Washington. The movie progressed and I found myself becoming yet more and more drawn into the film--not just watching it, but actually EXPERIENCING every ounce of war, prejudice, and moral questions that face the characters in the movie.
What's even more, is that you find yourself becoming attached to ALL of the characters--every single black soldier--in some strange way, so strange, that when these men fall in battle you feel a jolt of power inside of you that is converted to emotional sadness in your mind.
The final scenes in Glory are mesmerizing. No, more than that--utterly spectacular. The final battle scene at Fort Wagner is so amazingly shot you will think you're actually there fighting along with the black regimen. You're not in your seat watching the film--you feel like you're there! The final battle scene is so spectacular, it will easily remain one of the most memorable battle scenes I've ever witnessed in all of film. After watching Glory, you will find yourself truly moved in all ways possible. You will almost feel like a new person.
All of this paired with a beautiful score by James Horner, Glory is simply one of the best war movies of all-time. Anyone who misses this film is missing out one of the most powerful, moving, and memorable experiences a movie can bring you.
I'm so glad I found myself in history this year. -
4ize22 April 1999Easily the best Civil War movie ever produced, and among the front rank of all war movies. Filled with memorable and moving scenes - the look of sheer defiance on Trip's (Denzel Washington) face as his already scarred back is whipped, the men of the 54th telling their stories around the campfire on the eve of battle, Shaw (Matthew Broderick) turning loose his horse on the beach before Ft. Wagner. History is brought to life more vividly in this film than in any big-budget all-star cast epic I can recall. Most often , those films only succeed in collapsing under their own weight and leaving audiences more turned off about history. Glory brings the issues of the time - slavery, freedom and sacrifice - down to human scale. We can understand why the men of the 54th were willing to take up arms, and how tragic it was that they had to sacrifice their lives in order to be considered men.
-
With one of the best ensemble casts of all time, this ranks as one of the best war films of all time. With a collection of great black actors like no other, everything seemed to work well in this film, from the cinematography to the acting. Edward Zwick created a masterpiece, which, in any other year, would have swept most of the major awards. Sadly, this did not even make the AFI Top 100 so inferior movies could squeeze in. In my opinion, the likes of Born on the Fourth of July and Driving Miss Daisy were vastly inferior to this film during the 1990 Academy Awards. I mean, how the heck were films like Dead Poets Society and My Left Foot nominated for best picture when this one wasn't? (sure they were good films, but c'mon)
Matthew Broderick completely surprised me with his performance, as well as Cary Elwes. And one cannot forget the likes of Denzel Washington, and Morgan Freeman giving great performances as soldiers weary of being the Union's lackeys. While the historical accuracy may not be perfect, as least this was a tribute to those who helped emancipate the slaves during the Civil War. -
Brad K.21 March 1999My favorite movies to watch are probably war movies. I've seen many great films. From the Vietnam war (Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, Hamburger Hill, The Deer Hunter) to World War II (Saving Private Ryan, When Trumpets Fade, The Thin Red Line). But the best war film comes from the Civil War. Glory is an incredible film. It's about the 54th regiment for the Union, the first all black regiment. Matthew Broderick (Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Godzilla) stars as Robert Shaw, a white man in command of the regiment. Cary Elwes (The Princess Bride, Kiss the Girls) is his second in command. Denzel Washington (The Siege, Courage Under Fire) is magnificent as a runaway slave in the 54th. The always-great Morgan Freeman (Seven, Deep Impact) is superb as a spiritual leader of the soldiers. In my mind, the film has no faults. Broderick has been the main criticism by some people. I have to disagree. Broderick (though a bit young-looking) gives a wonderful performance. Cary Elwes has been an underrated actor his whole career. The same goes for Glory because his great supporting performance was widely ignored. James Horner delivers a haunting score which adds so much to the movie. A must see.
-
Muhls14 October 2008Glory is a fantastic and well put together movie. It shows the hardships of Africa Americans during the civil war and how patriotic every single one of them were. It had a very well round plot with the beginning middle and end entertaining and easy to follow. I really love how Edward Zwick depicts the scenery of 1862- it was incredibly realistic. Denzel Washington, Morgan Freeman, and Mathew Brodrick made the film a remarkable work of art. Glory was a strong film and i think it is arguably the best civil war movie yet to be made. The ending was excellent and original.
The movie was seen through the eyes of Mathew Brodrick otherwise know as the white commander of the 54th regiment Robert Shaw and how he feels for his black soldiers, it was truly moving. Most Civil War Movies are long and drag some extent but Glory got to the point quickly. The action in the film was limited to three war scenes but that is not a bad thing. I was hoping for a little more action but i guess i was satisfied with what little war violence was in it.
In conclusion Glory was a magnificent movie and i would recommend it to anyone wanting to have an educational experience or just wanting to see a good movie -
solar_son19 September 2002This movie falls into the "must see" category for historical dramas. Much like the films Saving Private Ryan and Last of the Mohicans, Glory stands as the war film to beat for its time period.
Glory arguably contains the most technically realistic and memorable Civil War reenactment scenes ever shot. Who didn't wince and watch in horror when Shaw and his regiment were blown to bits during the Antietam scene (which I would guess it was the West Woods portion of the Antietam battle??)? Who didn't feel uplifted when the 54th cuts down the Confederate cavalry charge which foolishly thought it would be no problem to break the lines of an inexperienced -and black- regiment? And finally, who didn't watch with solemn pride the dramatic climax of the Fort Wagner assault.
This movie shows that even though the men were treated as (even below) second class citizens by their own country and army, they still had the integrity and honor to fight the best they could for the Union - and eachother. That's why those men in the 54th and every other black regiment stood out from the rest. They must have known of America's potential even before America did and fought to develop that and win black people the dignity and respect they always deserved but never got. Glory puts that struggle on film for us to experience - and doesn't disappoint. -
MrJukka10 October 2005Since the movie came out, I haven't heard much anything but good things about it. Therefore, I was surprised by how mediocre a movie it really is.
It is understandable that Holleywood could not present the historical events without serious simplifications. How else could the American public understand it. Blacks are fighting for their freedom with pure hearts. The only trouble maker is just angry at the world and settles down before the end. The whites are either assholes or enlightened moral men with iron back bone. This is so far from real life it makes me puke.
Let me first tell you what annoyed me about the movie: at the time when American government is more than ever using blatant violence to secure their own interests around the world, this kind of glorification of war and killing sickened me. If the American civil war really had been about values I might excuse it, but it was not. It was about cotton, molasses and grain. Southern states had it, northerners didn't. That's what the blacks were fighting for, not their freedom.
The men they were killing weren't their true enemies, for the most part. Just a bunch of other poor folks. There is no Glory in war. Just killing and dying with more or less bravery, but glory, no.
As normally in war movies, dieing was too clean. War is not clean. The bullet rarely seeks the heart. Slaying someone with a bayonet certainly is not clean and bloodless.
I am not squeamish. I like a good action movie, even a splatter once in a while, but they are not serious. Glory took itself much too seriously to be a mindless action movie.
The movie could have been so much more. There were elements for great drama in there, but the writing took all the short cuts available to it. Such pity.
Why did I then give it as much as 7/10? Because Glory is not a bad movie, just a disappointment. -
abcizdaman1 July 2020I like watching this every once in awhile. Great video shooting and music as well as soulful story. Something for all Blacks to be proud of. The accomplishments of the 54th started the trend of the creation of many Black Union regiments. Matthew Broderick, Denzel Washington, and Morgan Freeman had outstanding performances. Pride is what makes this movie so great. Pride and standing for what you believe in, no matter the cost.
-
AdamNC12314 September 2020Glory is a must see Civil War movie. Do I think it's the best civil war movie like many others have claimed? No. It's a great movie with a great story made all the better by the fact that it is a true story. But there are simply too many inconsistencies and historical inaccuracies for me to give it a higher rating. I may be in the minority here, but I love war movies that try to be as accurate as possible such as Dunkirk. You can never be perfect when it comes to historical screenplays but you can certainly tell when a director tries their best to be historically accurate down to the small detail. Glory is historically accurate in its story but as far as civil war movies go, it is not on the top of the list for accurate details. Call me nit picky if you must but these inaccuracies tend to throw me off when I should be paying attention to the movie rather than wondering why a South Carolina regiment is flying a Tennessee rebel flag or why the soldiers don't have bayonets mounted on their guns and just as they charge bayonets magically appear. I'm certainly not a civil war expert or a war expert in general but if I can see these inaccuracies than the director should have as well.
-
pandamorehead6 October 2007Being a civil war buff, I have viewed this film many times. This film is about the first black union civil war regiment. It is moving, historically accurate and a tribute to the men who fought in the civil war. The depictions of the African Americans who served the union cause are wonderful. Action is minimal, as the focus is on the men and what they went through. What battle scenes do exit are presented well. The climax of the assault on the Confederate fort is breathtaking. Bottom line, a good film with a near fatal flaw. Matthew Broderick was badly cast, being neither believable in the role nor competent as an actor in general.
-
I find this one of my most difficult reviews to write. Even as I sit here for what must be the 206th viewing, I marvel, as acutely as I did in the very first viewing, that this tale has the compelling and overwhelming power to touch aesthetically, viscerally, profoundly and emotionally my sense of pride,injustice, soul. Even if this were not a true story, I would still recommend this movie to everyone with awe and reverence. And even as I watch, there is goose-flesh and damp eyes. As there always is...
Based on the letters compiled and only two reference books (including "One Gallant Rush" by Peter Burchard, which I proudly own), this tells the tale of the heretofore largely unknown 54th Massachusetts Infantry, the first Afro-American regimen in American history during the Civil War. Colonel Robert Gould Shaw was a 26-year old bright eyed Bostonian who was chosen by favor to lead the "first colored regimen" at the apex of the Civil War. Matthew Broderick portrays Col. Shaw as accurately as possible, bringing the youth and zeal of the real Shaw to grand light. He was truly overwhelmed by the thought of leading the troops, but idealistic and optimistic enough to give it everything he had and to make his family and title proud. Broderick never loses sight of the simple fact that Shaw was humble and grateful for every advancement he was given. Although in reality the 54th was compiled of mostly free black men from upper New England, Denzel Washington is cast as the runaway slave Trip who brings his grudges and injustices to the troop. He portrays a slave who is on a personal mission to hurt those who have hurt him (if you know about the history of slavery, one can hardly blame him), but in the process hurts himself all the more until by rote he learns to channel his hate into determination, and by his actions is humiliated and beaten down to the point that he can only rise up like a griffin and prove that he is as much a soldier as the rest of them. The 'whipping scene' in which you see him go through that exact process, every emotion known to a man culminating in a quiver of the cheek, a single tear escaping, and eyes that shred, plea, hate, mourn, haunt. That Denzel could convey that with a role that could have easily been a stereotype deserves more praise that I can type. Morgan Freeman is a man of quiet yet profound dignity that carries him in every role he plays, and this time as Rawlins is no exception. He is a victim of prejudice, but still carries his own as a man. He is there for his men as a leader even before being officially decorated, but he is not above reaching out to Shaw to help his men simply because Shaw is yet another white authority--he helps the cause, no matter the colors. And that cause is so much more than the War, which I will explain further below...
The score by the wunderkind James Horner is Majesty in every literary definition of the word. I know that if I'm ever stressed and need a release, all I have to do is pop in a CD of this score, listen for only a few minutes, and I will be sobbing. In my humble opinion he has yet to top himself with his work in this picture. From the subtle ache of a single horn to the swelling of the Harlem Boys' Choir and their keening voices that beg us to remember forever.
I won't break down the actors, directing or anything individually any more than I have because that's not the intention of this film. It's not a star vehicle, but rather hundreds of people coming together to tell a story they believe in. And as such, deserve to be praised as a whole, which only proves how well they've done their work. But some scenes cannot escape the psyche...The morning after they've been read a proclamation stating that they will be put to death, black and white, if caught bearing Union arms, and there they stand as a unit for roll call, not one man deserting, at attention for duty, prouder and taller than ever...The aforementioned Corporal Punishment scene (which, by the way, was the same punishment white officers would suffer if they deserted as well)...The charge on Fort Wagner--Shaw finally returning to the seashore he so loved all his life for what he knows in his heart is the last time, feeling home again and yet feeling already a walking spectre--Rawlins with a divine inner pride in his eyes marching toward the fort as Thomas looks to the others and Trip with no longer the mad lashing-out force to kill but the aggravated determination to win--the company as a whole marching into Fate with a gallant unified step...
The true meaning of "hero" is in the heart of a man who faces even death if it will prove himself a man, not only to others but to himself. This lies true for every person in that brave pioneering regimen, black and white. They didn't just die for their country or their rights, but for their own personal honors and faiths as human beings who are deserved of dignity. The likes of which this country will never see again, but must not fall into obscurity. At the heart, and in my heart, this is not a story of men, but what it means to be a man. And the sacrifice it sometimes takes to become one and prove yourself one.
We as a Nation, as Earth, should thank the 54th for that beautiful lesson. This pristine film will guarantee it so. -
planktonrules11 December 2011Before I talk specifically about this movie, I was very surprised in 1990 during the Academy Awards ceremony. Denzel Washington got the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for his performance in "Glory"--even though I felt that Morgan Freeman did a better job in this film. On top of that, Freeman had also turned in a masterful performance this same year in "Driving Miss Daisy". Now I am not putting down Washington's acting--he was fine. But to me, it was more Freeman's film and he stood out furthest among this nice ensemble cast.
The biggest reasons I liked the movie so much were because it had a deeper message than just war and because it tried to get things right historically. As far as the message goes, it was about racism and black men proving themselves during the Civil War. This was very uplifting and exciting to watch. It also was lovely because as a history teacher, I so often HATE how historical films get all the facts wrong. Here, while it isn't perfect, it is sure close!! I'd say more, but frankly there are already a ton of reviews for this film--suffice to say as a recently retired history teacher, I couldn't recommend the film more. -
This was without a doubt the single best war movie i have seen. Movies such as Saving Private Ryan, Black Hawk Down, and Patton just didn't have the same feeling of excitement that i received while watching this movie.
Not only were the action scenes intense, the "in-between" scenes didn't lose any of the splendor that could be seen during several of the epic battles. I felt empowered when Thomas became the first draftee for the 54th. I was excited watching the regiment destroying the Confederates during their skirmish. I felt Thomas' pain when he was shot for the first time. I was proud of Pvt. Trip when he was asked to be the flag bearer for the regiment. And I cried when the regiment was decimated during the battle of Fort Wagner.
This movie sent me through such a range of emotions that i couldn't help but love it, and I'm sure anyone else who watches this movie would feel the same -
jveitch12 December 2004There seem to be a great many comments listed arguing whether
Mathew Broderick was a good choice to play Col. Robert Shaw or
not. All I can say is that he makes the film work for me. Whether
Broderick under played the part or not, I couldn't imagine any other
actor being more appropriate for the part. Not only were his looks
and age ideal for the individual he was recreating, but his
performance gave Gould the personality he needed; as someone
who was idealistic, young and somewhat callow, yet ultimately
displayed great maturity and fantastic courage.
While Denzel Washington's performance was far more forceful
(and aptly so), I honestly found Broderick's character the most
compelling in the movie.
By the climactic battle, I felt great empathy for each of the
characters, especially Col. Shaw. I guess I feel that by playing
Shaw as a quiet rather than grand presence, Broderick is able to
more successfully highlight the extraordinary bravery and moral
fibre the man showed in his willingness to sacrifice everything for
his men and their cause. Though you could clearly see that he
dreaded his duty, he carried it out unflinchingly. Thats what
leadership is all about. I like heroes who show their humanity
infinitely more than those hollywoodised cutouts that actors like
Bruce Willis often play. I've never actually seen Ferris Bueller's day out. A lot of people who
write about Glory say that its hard not to see that character
wherever Broderick goes. I'll be interested to see Ferris Bueller
now that I've established Broderick in my mind as a Civil war
officer. I'll be happy to here anyones comments on the subject. -
Robert Gould Shaw (Matthew Broderick), a young officer in the American Civil War, is singled out for heroism at the bloody Battle of Antietam. Promoted to colonel, he is commissioned the commander of the 54th Massachusetts infantry - a regiment made up entirely of black soldiers. With the help of his friend Cabot Forbes (Cary Elwes) and a loud-mouthed Irish drill sergeant (John Finn), Shaw whips his recruits into a fine unit. However, he learns that his superior officers - namely crooked department leader General Harker (Bob Gunton) and Colonel Montgomery (Cliff De Young), his racist brigade commander - have no intention of letting his troops into action. However, they finally do get a chance, winning a skirmish with a Confederate patrol and then leading an assault on Fort Wagner, one of the Confederate forts protecting Charleston, South Carolina. The attack fails, Shaw is killed, and over half the regiment with him - but the 54th Massachusetts earns its place in history.
If nothing else, "Glory" deserves credit for shining the light on one of the most overlooked chapters in American history. While thousands of white men died for the Union in fruitless charges from Fredericksburg to Shiloh, white leaders throughout the North were reluctant to arm blacks, for a variety of reasons - they couldn't fight, they would incite the border states to leave the Union, white soldiers wouldn't allow it - but finally, it occurred. The 54th Massachusetts was not the first black regiment raised, nor was it the first to see combat in the Civil War - but it was arguably the most important. After its attack on Fort Wagner, even the most bigoted white politicians had to admit that blacks were just as good as whites. By war's end over 100,000 blacks were in uniform, and black troops of the Union XXV Corps were the first to enter Richmond after its fall to Union forces in April 1865. This is movie is a perfect tribute to the men of the 54th, and to every black soldier who overcame the odds to prove themselves worthy.
The cast is amazing in this film, with Matthew Broderick giving a bravura performance as Shaw. Shaw himself is only in his twenties, but is forced to become the leader of some 700 men, most of them older than him, and train them to be good fighters. Shaw is doggedly determined to prove himself, and other than one or two overlong speeches, Broderick does a marvelous job (despite a ridiculous Boston accent) portraying this heroic figure. Denzel Washington got a well-deserved Oscar for his role as Trip, the bitter black soldier who struggles to find himself while serving in the regiment. Morgan Freeman as usual is amazing as Sergeant Rawlins, the gravedigger-turned-soldier who becomes a father figure to Shaw's ragged men. Jhimi Kennedy and Andre Brougher are also solid as other black soldiers, while Cary Elwes, John Finn, Cliff De Young, Bob Gunton, Jay O. Sanders, Richard Riehle, and Alan North are all fine in supporting roles.
Edward Zwick's direction is stellar, catching the feel of Civil War times with splendid detail. The battle scenes are spectacular, with the final assault on Fort Wagner one of the most heart-pounding action scenes in any war movie. Kevin Jarre's screenplay is exceptionally well-written, and a world apart from the more witty script he would write for "Tombstone" several years later. And James Horner's haunting score is an instant classic.
While it can be argued that the unsuccessful assault on Fort Wagner had little importance to the overall Civil War, it did have massive importance for America's black community and showed that they too had a place not only in the military, but in society as well. "Glory" is a fitting tribute to men who are overshadowed by the glories of Gettysburg and Chickamauga, but are just as deserving of recognition for their extraordinary heroism.
Nine stars. -
I missed the first minutes up to the point where Broderick witnessed the amputation... and apparently these must have been extraordinary minutes.
This movie is very accurate and doesn't have a happy end or love story or any other typical block buster elements... It's politically correct and educating. It really deserves at least a 6 or a 7.
It's kind of a good docudrama! But it's certainly not one of the top 250 or even the "best war movie ever"! Watch "Path of Glory" or "All Quiet on the Western Front" and compare these dramatically perfect war movies! Without clichés, without happy end, without love story and 100% believable characters.
I only saw a (stereo)typical Washington, Freeman and Broderick, in roles they played dozens of times before, nothing extraordinary.
I have the impression this movie gets special points because of its political or historical message or even out of patriotic feelings...
But does this really make a "best" film, everybody should see? -
SnoopyStyle29 October 2013Robert Gould Shaw (Matthew Broderick) is the son of a wealthy Boston abolitionist family. He signs up for war at 23, and suffers through a harrowing battle at Antietam. After the "victory" at Antietam, the Union organizes the first company of black soldiers. Shaw would lead them into battle and history.
The scale of the battles is impressive. It's a big production from director Edward Zwick. It is expertly put together. The acting is top rate from great actors. Broderick imparts a blend of hopefulness and pragmatism. He's a boy trying to live up to being a man with historic responsibilities. Morgan Freeman gives this movie weight, and Denzel Washington gives the big money shot.
It's easy to nitpick this movie to death. By quoting directly from Shaw's letters, it lends itself to criticism of its factual reliability. But that would miss the point of the movie. It's not a documentary. -
rmax30482323 February 2007There were complaints that Mathew Broderick was too short and unimposing to play Robert Gould Shaw, the Colonel who led the 54th Massachussetts into battle and dismemberment. I don't think I agree. Why should a courageous and even heroic man be made to look like Michelangelo's sculpture of Moses? Weren't there ever any SHORT heroes? As far as I can discern, from what little grasp of historical events I have, the general outline of the plot sticks pretty close to the facts. I don't know that Frederick Douglass was still as prominent in 1863 as he had been earlier. Maybe he was. As the events unfold, though, they ring fairly true. The narration by Broderick is lifted directly from Shaw's letters to his family and they reveal a self-doubt, a contrarian conviction, a dignity, an objectivity, and a humility that all the rest of us must envy. His role in the film is similar to that of Liam Neeson's in "Schindler's List" or Richard Harris's in "A Man Called Horse" or Kevin Costner's in "Dances With Wolves." He is "our" liaison to "them".
Shaw was educated, white, and socially prominent so we get to know a lot about him and the milieu in which he was raised. The Colored Troops, as they were called at the time, are only sketched in by the writers, and only sketchily sketched. There is the angry ex-slave, the wise old man, the good-natured but dumb squirrel shooter, and the poetry-reading New Englander who gets the crap beaten out of him by a racist Mick Sergeant -- for a lofty cause, naturally, as all sadistic drill sergeants are quick to point out. They look a little too much like the crew of the original Memphis Belle. If they were white, there would be a street-wise tough guy from Brooklyn and a braggart farm boy from Texas. The stereotypes are functional, though. Most stereotypes are.
The structure shows us that not all "blacks" were the same. Nor were all "Northern whites" the same. Cliff DeYoung is a Jayhawker, an ex-slave owner, now an abolitionist, who believes his men must be treated like children. There was a lot of that going around. Darwinism was still a radical idea, less than ten years old. Nobody had the slightest idea of how humans had evolved and in the absence of DNA and other biological evidence of racial relationships, judgments were made on the basis of traits that have been shown to be superficial -- hair texture, skin color, the shape of the soft parts of the face. African-Americans were easy targets for displaced aggression just because they looked so different and there were so many of them around. Irishmen stepping off the boats were faced with being drafted into what was thought (wrongly) to be a rich man's war and a poor man's fight. The draft riots of New York City killed more than a hundred people, most of them black, including some in an orphanage.
There were some monumental historical dynamics at work at the time, but no space to go into them, and they're most irrelevant to the movie anyway. (May I suggest reading Bruce Catton's books on the Civil War? Or MacPherson's Pulitzer-Prize-winning "The Battle Cry of Freedom"?) Broderick does pretty well by his role. He toughens up as he goes along. Cary Elwes looks handsome and acts as a humanistic counterbalance. Among the troops, Morgan Freeman is excellent, as usual, though his part doesn't offer him that much to do. What a fine actor he is. And Andre Braugher as the educated New Englander who is a poor soldier is outstanding as well. Denzel Washington was adequate without bringing much else to the party. The score is so bloated with "glory" that it really belongs to some epic about The Second Coming.
Perhaps the scene I found most amusing involved Braugher and the rest debarking in South Carolina and bumping into some local ex-slaves. Braugher is unable to understand them because they're speaking in Gullah dialect, in which a "buckra man" is a boss or, by extension, any white person. The most disturbing scene involved my watching this in a theater in which the audience was largely black and being almost deafened by screams of exhortation as the Colored Troops shot and bayoneted whites. I wonder if Gunnar Myrdal may have been right about race in this country. -
george_jozwiak17 September 2004This is by far one of the best movies I have ever seen over and over again. From the sound track by James Horner and the singing of the Harlem Boys Choir to the acting of Matthew Broderick, Denzel Washington, Morgan Freeman and the rest of the cast, this movie was most excellent and outstanding. It does something very few movies movies do. It run chills up my spine every time I see it. Some historical liberties may have been taken, but it is an outstanding story of courage, bravery, camaraderie and honor, as well as the horror that was the War Between the States.
From the opening scene to the last, the cinematography and the battle scenes are spectacular. Simply remembering the scene where the Confederate troops emerge from the smoke and haze in the forest during one of the battles scenes runs chills up and down my spine. I could actually feel in my own gut the fear and bravery of the soldiers of the 54th who held the line during the Confederate charge. Amazing.
The title "Glory" is most fitting and says it all. I highly recommend this movie.
Captain of Infantry George Jozwiak -
sabrina89425 June 2003The movie is one that will last and be watchable years from now. The screenplay seems to match reality unlike many good movies from the past that were praised during their time but seem laughable now.
I think this is one of the best scores James Horner has ever written! I've had the cd since the movie came out and have never tired of playing it. It's touching, heroic, solemn and just plain wonderful. Also, The Boys Choir of Harlem's singing is top notch! -
namashi_130 July 2015Based on the novel One Gallant Rush by Peter Burchard, 'Glory' is high on ambition, but low on execution. Despite a stellar Denzel Washington & Mesmerising Cinematography, this war epic falls on short on its scripting level & lethargic pacing.
'Glory' Synopsis: Robert Gould Shaw leads the US Civil War's first all-black volunteer company, fighting prejudices of both his own Union army and the Confederates.
Edward Zwick is a terrific storyteller, but honestly, 'Glory' isn't among his better works. I wasn't engaged in the narrative & the lethargic pacing got to me after a point. Kevin Jarre's Adapted Screenplay isn't powerful enough. I loved some scenes in its second-hour, but overall, I found the goings-on to be mostly dull. Better Writing was most definitely needed! Zwick's Direction is satisfactory.
The Late/Great Freddie Francis's Cinematography is mesmerizing. 'Glory' is a visual delight, no two options on that! Another ace is Denzel Washington's Oscar-Winning sterling performance. As Private Silas Trip, Washington enacts the tormented soul with unmatchable ease. He owns the show.
On the whole, 'Glory' is not magnificent, but it has some plus points. Watch it, but only if you must!