Jon Monsarrat review: good except for Broderick

Rating: 7/10 (23 May 2004)

Glory is a true story worth telling, and I always give those the benefit of the doubt. For example, Pearl Harbor was a little campy but I thought it held together fine. Glory is also worth seeing, although I have two reservations.
The first one is small. Any true to life story has a rich context and it's difficult to tell what's happening in the world outside the story, why the scenes are important, and which character has what goals. One film that succeeds phenomenally in this is Thirteen Days. Glory takes a stab at it, but often I was left wondering what was historic and what was irrelevant. Does our protagonist empathize with the black men or not? I am guessing this was not a clean story to tell; the good guys aren't all good and they dressed it up for the movie.
More importantly, there is some great acting by Denzel Washington and others. But not by Matthew Broderick. How shall I say this politely? He destroys every scene he is in. He doesn't seem very angry in the angry scenes. His character is conflicted but we don't get a sense of passion. The entire story revolves around a weak man finding his courage... the theme is totally lost. Perhaps one of the black men should have been the protagonist. While I'm on this topic, Cary Elwes was bad as usual as well. I don't know, both actors are too boyish and tend to sound like they're reading their lines.
So although I loved the story I spend the film thinking dark thoughts about Matthew Broderick.
Who should see this film:
-- War / history buffs
-- Drama fans, if you can take the acting
-- People who like action flicks, maybe on a rainy day, or better yet, skip it. See Saving Private Ryan.
I'll give Glory a 7 out of 10, sort of a bonus 6 for being on such an important topic.