Glory

There 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.

There 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.

If 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.

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.

"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.