Glory, a review by Antares
Glory (1989)
4/5 - I hadn't seen this film for close to fifteen years, but I remember being surprised at how good a war drama it was. I've never been much of an Edward Zwick fan, but this time, he got it pretty much right. The battle scenes have a realism that shocks the viewer and which is pretty much transparent in other Civil War films such as
Gettysburg and
Gods and Generals. The gore and horror which is so invisible in those two films hurts the credibilty of the narrative. Not so with
Glory. From the moment we witness the horrors of the cornfield at Antietam, a true sense of believabilty is created. As a way to placate the Northern abolitionists, the 54th Massachusetts regiment was comprised of ex-slaves and free blacks and led by white abolitionist officers. But the northern politicians never conceived of letting them go into battle, as they were afraid of alienating the white soldiers of their own ranks, who weren't fighting for emancipation. But after the costly battles of Antietam, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville and Gettysburg, and coinciding with the New York draft riots of July 1863, the 54th fought their baptism of fire at Fort Wagner, just outside of Charleston harbor. In their desperate attack and repulsion from the breastworks of the fortress, the seeds of a new fighting force would be sown in the sandy soil of South Carolina. With the influx of new recruits from this untapped segment of the population, it was a foregone conclusion that the war would soon swing in favor of the Union.
If I could change one thing in this film, it would be to have Denzel Washington and Andre Braugher switch roles. I'm used to seeing Washington play these angry young black man roles, it would have been interesting to see what Braugher would have done with the role. As good as Washington was in this film, I always felt that Braugher's performance was better.
(From Antares' Short Summations on March 11th, 2014)
Users: 0
May 19, 2024, 01:37:06 AM
