Some inaccuracies, but a must-view movie.

Rating: 10/10 (12 December 2000)

From the performances (I think all the Academy Awards voters who didn't vote for Morgan Freeman and Matthew Broderick for Best Actor that year should be expelled) to the battles to the search for what is right, "Glory" has it all.
You know the details, and if you've read the reviews you know about the historical inaccuracies. That to me takes nothing away from this movie. I would rather see a hundred movies where the insignias weren't right with this kind of humanity and emotion than one so-called 'historically accurate' drama like "Gettysburg" that recorded the events but missed the fear, the passion, the individual actions that make up a battle or a campaign. If you want the facts, read a book.
I'm sure the 54th wasn't totally keen on charging the fort. But they did. And that's what this movie is about, that's what "Glory" really means: one finds glory not in doing what is correct or expedient, but in doing what is right when it is right to do so, no matter what the personal (being killed in battle) or social (being threatened with execution for leading black soldiers) consequences.
Maybe if schools spent more time showing and discussing historical dramas such as this and less time trying to be vo-tech institutes, violence wouldn't seem as glamorous or fascinating to the younger generations. Nothing about war is noble except the men who fight it, and "Glory" is one of the best examples of that you could ever hope to see. If you haven't seen it, rent it.