Matthew Broderick is brilliant in this movie
-
Hancock_the_Superb — 14 years ago(May 31, 2011 04:50 PM)
Agreed. I think Broderick was unfairly criticized just because he was cast - a lot of comments you read on the film are "What's Ferris Bueller doing in a Civil War film?" He is outshined by Denzel Washington and Morgan Freeman, but they have flashier characters to play. Broderick hits Shaw's mixture of idealism, insecurity and haughtiness perfectly, and I can't picture anyone else in the part.
"That's what the elves call Justice of the Unicorn!" -
nooneishere — 14 years ago(July 07, 2011 05:00 PM)
Shaw died at 25 (or so), why were people ever complaining that Broderick was too you to play the character? I also think his young voice is perfect for the character's inexperience with the position, it adds a dimension to an already great portrayal.
"That's the karma again, I didn't help Kenny so she beat me up with a telephone" -
Jlcsoccer4 — 14 years ago(July 09, 2011 10:08 PM)
I recently did a research paper on Shaw for my Civil War studies class and all the research I did, including reading the numerous letters he wrote during the war, only further convinced me that Broderick played the role perfectly. I wouldn't have wanted anyone else for Shaw.
-
digitaldiva — 14 years ago(July 27, 2011 12:48 PM)
Hi thrwmbgkdosbepmc,
Matthew was wonderful in this role. Shaw was a small, boyish young man who died at 25. He was Harvard educated, spoke with a Boston Brahmin accent, and Matthew captured it perfectly. A wonderful movie and he was wonderful in it. -
anneandwalt-1 — 13 years ago(February 09, 2013 06:43 PM)
Watching Glory again, I have reappraised Broderick's performance and found it quite strong. Let's remember that at only age 25 he was a Colonel leading a full regiment - and was not a professional soldier. Giving his horrific experiences earlier in the war, Shaw was understandably wrestling with fear and self-doubt as he struggled to fulfill his parents wishes in a politically thankless situation.
Casting a older, gruffer actor would not have been true to Shaw - well done Matthew. -
LDHRELL2003 — 12 years ago(December 25, 2013 02:09 PM)
The film was not even nominated for Best PictureDenzel spoke to that doing his acceptance for Best Supporting actor. The critics used Broderick's so called "weak" performance to diminish Glory. The only reason why Glory did not win Best Picture"Driving Miss Daisy"really? Matthew was simply amazing in the movie.
-
hnt_dnl — 11 years ago(July 05, 2014 02:09 AM)
That's a tough call, because this was not Washington's first Oscar nomination.
Cry Freedom
in 1987 was. And both of these roles are Supporting. I guess you could say that this movie was a breakout because it was a flashy role which won him his first Oscar, but a lot of Oscar winners have died into obscurity after winning. His star was definitely on the rise at this point. -
Michael71 — 11 years ago(June 22, 2014 06:37 AM)
Yeah its the scenes where he has no lines where he comes off really well. He played the part extremely well I agree. This film should be more popular, it is educational, should be shown in schools in history lessons definately.
-
-
moon_star_skies — 11 years ago(October 21, 2014 02:45 PM)
100% on target! Matthew was brilliant in "Glory" and deserved more recognition for his moving performance, not to mention his stunning performance in "How to Succeed." He can perform any characterdance & song man, drama, scientific characters, political figures, etc., etc. He is brilliant.
-
Herreken — 11 years ago(December 20, 2014 03:31 PM)
When I see him in this role, he is no longer Matthew Broderick but the complete embodiment of Colonel Robert Gould Shaw, from his Bostonian accent (as a New Englander, one that is spot on and consistent throughout the film) to his timidly firm command of a regiment in which he frequently questioned his own ability and experience to lead.
It's good to see people who know about the real Shaw positively judge Broderick's performance. I'm not a huge Broderick fan but I always thought he was good in this movie even though I never knew anything about Robert Shaw.
Broderick was convincing as a young Colonel who might've been a little unsure of himself. When I watch Glory, I don't think "Hey it's Ferris Bueller". On the other hand when I watch Bramstocker's Dracula, I think "Ted Theodore Logan is doing a very bad British accent". Now
that
is miscasting right there.
DISPLAY thy breasts, my Julia! -
twhiteson — 11 years ago(March 31, 2015 08:53 AM)
I agree. "Glory" was Matthew Broderick's finest moment as an actor. Although he continues to work steadily in film and had some real triumphs on the Broadway stage, "Glory" remains his crowning achievement as an actor. Apparently, he's on record that this is his favorite role.
It's ironic that in 1989 Broderick was the biggest star of the cast. At the time, Denzel Washington was a TV actor who dabbled in films. Morgan Freeman was a veteran supporting actor still awaiting his big break. (One of his better known early roles was in the 1970's children's TV program "The Electric Company" on PBS.) And Andre Braugher was virtually unknown. Yet, today, Morgan Freeman is a household name. Andre Braugher is a very busy TV actor. And Denzel Washington is one of the biggest movie stars in the world. Meanwhile, Broderick's star as a film actor has decidedly diminished. Post-Glory saw the careers of Washington, Freeman, and Braugher take-off, but Broderick's career as a major movie star started to fade which is surprising considering how good he was in this role. -
AfroGeek — 10 years ago(July 01, 2015 12:54 PM)
Broderick had a few good scenes but I thought he was outshined by the rest of the cast. I wouldn't put him in the top 5 performances in just THIS movie.
Call them
ISIL
. Isis is an overloaded term that has many other legitimate uses. -
homercles11 — 10 years ago(November 20, 2015 09:01 AM)
I am a big Civil War buff and loved this movie from the get go. I initially didn't like Broderick in the role, he seemed to light weight for such a heavy topic. But as time goes on I think he did a great job with the role, playing the innocent idealist to a tee. He really got the Shaw part down. There was so much about his portrayal that was subtle that one really needs to pay attention deeply. Like meeting Frederick Douglas and being offered the colonelship of the 54th. You could see so much in his expression, with so few words, not the least of which was being called on his idealism in front of the epitome of his ideal-Frederick Douglas. That and his first hand knowledge of the horrors of war.