| Overall Grade: |
B+ |
|
| Story: |
B |
|
|
| Acting: |
A |
|
|
| Direction: |
A- |
|
|
| Visuals: |
B+ |
|
|
Nearly Glorious
by Yahoo! Movies User (movies profile)
Mar 8, 2007
8
of
12 people found this review helpful
"Glory" is a powerful and meaningful film. It conveys the ever-relevant story of equality. It falls just short of being the greatest war movie ever. It's only flaw is that it brings nothing new. "Glory" may do it the best, but it's still been done before. Nevertheless, "Glory" will stir your heart and is very much worth a viewing.
After being wounded in the Battle of Antietam, Captain Robert Shaw (Matthew Broderick) is given the task of leading the first black regiment in the Union army. Along with his best friend (Cary Elwes), Shaw leads a band of ragtag men including a ferocious runaway (Denzel Washington) and an experienced old man (Morgan Freeman). Through a difficult training and small jobs of manual labor, the men and their leaders form a bond and finally get their chance to fight: in the suicidal march of Fort Wagner.
The story is well drawn-out. It manages to focus in on the characters while still keeping the scope of the war. You manage to get in touch with the important characters. You feel for them. The only problem is the rest of the regiment seems out of your reach. Besides the 4 or 5 characters you get to know, the remaining men are just shadows. I know it is a lot to ask of screenwriters, but if a movie wants to be deemed as great, it must bring something new. The story is well-done, but a new trick would have propelled into the realm of a classic.
Matthew Broderick is a very underrated actor. His transformation from a scared young soldier to a brave leader is what the story is about. As is the transformation of his men. They and their captain rise to "glory". None of this is shown more than in Denzel Washington fierce, heartfelt performance. His angry, cynical runaway turns into a soldier who is no longer fighting just for himself; he is fighting for others. Washington deserved his Oscar. But another actor who deserves recognition is Morgan Freeman. His weary old man is the only one there who really knows what war is like. As a gravedigger, he has seen the battles and their aftermaths. He brings this knowledge and burden and uses it to wise up the young, restless soldiers. Freeman not only guide the characters, but also us, the audience, through the movie with a steady hand.
One of the things Edward Zwick does well with "Glory" is he showcases the battles. They are not common territory. They are very big and very scary, as I imagine it is in real war. The cinematography is great, allowing itself to be sweeping and vast, but still centering in on the main characters. The battles are very brutal and ugly, not stylized. It seems like you are really there in the midst of the gunfire, not sitting in your seat, eating popcorn. That's what war movies purposes tends to be. To show you war's ugly face so you do not grow fond of it because Hollywood embraces it.
In the end, "Glory" is beautifully made and well worth remembering. The time and care put into its making demands your respect. While it isn't always a pleasant ride, it's a well-spent one. "Glory" may not be destined for glory, but it comes close enough. |
My Public Profile 
