MovieChat Forums > Glory (1990) Discussion > Matthew Broderick is brilliant in this m...

Matthew Broderick is brilliant in this movie

posted 13 years ago by eastwind29
34 replies | jump to latest

I've read so many of the opinions that he was miscast for this role but I have to say that quite honestly, it is his performance that sets the entire tone for movie for me. 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 was more than Broderick's youth that aptly fit this role, but his ability to convey so much emotion while saying so little truly astounded me and his warmth and paternal guidance over the men all while still retaining the vulnerability of his age. No where is this more visible than when he puts his hand on the shoulder of one of his men while lining up for the battle and looks at him with such great pride. It touches me every time I've seen this movie.

Matthew Broderick is a truly underrated actor in a very underrated performance. I look at a time where an actress like Sandra Bullock wins an oscar for Blind Side (which by the way, I thought she was great in), and compare it to Broderick's performance and feel as I did when I first saw it--he deserved recognition. For me, without Broderick in the role, it just wouldn't have been the same movie.

[–] big_t997 13 years ago

Broderick has one of the most underrated acting careers in Hollywood.

He is a very good actor who can play different roles very well.

The problem is, the civil war is a tough sell in Hollywood. Most people either don't care about it, don't really understand it, and it generally only appeals to a very small demographic and niche community. That and the fact that he played Buler's day off just a few years before kind took a lot of people back, but I think thats what makes him so good.

Both roles were so different than each other and both are now classics, I think that says something about the actor. You don't see many actors who have as much depth as Broderick does.

I think from a history buff perspective is that he was a very good fit for the role. The character he played as was exactly how I thought of Shaw. A quiet somewhat timid man who beneath his physical qualities was a smart man who embroiled what every officer should be in the military. The real col. shaw was not much liked by his other officers, officers who were assigned to black regiments were considered somewhat inferior and given those jobs because they were perceived as not able to handle what the other officers with white troops could.

The north was just as racist in some aspects as the south, i'd argue more because they were being blatant hypercritical, at least with the south you knew what you were getting.

[–] I_Created_U 7 years ago

Gotta disagree with OP on this one. I'm gonna be mean and say he was the weakest link of the cast, something he has been in pretty much everything except in Ferris Bueller. Never found him talented or even convincing, but maybe that's just me. And it doesn't change the fact that Ferris is indeed a classic.

People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs

[–] gioconda 13 years ago

Matthew was great in many of his early roles, including this one.

I have to disagree about Ms. Bullock in the "Blind Side". Didn't work for me particularly her accent.

[–] Dragon6068 10 years ago

It's hard to imitate people with a speech impediment. She did her best...

[–] rondine 13 years ago

I agree. I think this is his best picture thus far. I will never forget the first time I saw it nor my reaction to his portrayal of Col. Robert Gould Shaw. He is underrated and this is a piece of work he should be very, very proud of!

[–] USAFMXOfficer_2013 13 years ago

Totally agree with all posts. It also is amazing the physical resemblance between Broderick and Shaw. Has anyone ever seen any interviews with Broderick concerning his preparation for this movie?

Check these side by side photos out--->

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm4043935232/ch0008075

Arguing with a Truther is like trying to teach a ham sandwich to play chess - Sivazh

[–] shayup 13 years ago

I'm so glad to see a thread on this. I am in total agreement. Everytime I see this movie I am astounded on all the performances (except for Elwes who seemed goofy to me). Matthew's performance most definitely set the tone for this movie. While the movie was about war, it really was about self reflection, respect and dignity. He captured Shaw's growth as a timid reluctant leader to a great leader of men.

When you look back at the quality roles back the late 80's, it's more understandable that Matthew did not get a nomination. It's a total reflection of how few good movies and roles there are today. Without a doubt, if this movie was made 10 years later, Matthew would have be honored as well as the movie itself.

When the book is closed on Broderick's career, people will reexamine some of his roles and find that many are very underrated. He brings a subtley to his roles that is so refreshing to me.

[–] Chloe1251 13 years ago

While the movie was about war, it really was about self reflection, respect and dignity.

I couldn't agree more. I've seen this movie countless times and each time I'm newly amazed by the subtle yet powerful performances, especially Matthew Broderick's. This movie is extremely moving and touching without having even a touch of saccharine or sappiness. Even after so many viewings I'm still unable to watch the final scene on the beach (before the battle) without tearing up.

IMO, one of the finest films ever made, bar none.

[–] shayup 13 years ago

I have never seen or read anything about Matthew speaking about Glory. Maybe another reason he wasn't nominated. Self promotion isn't always his style.

[–] hachmom-1 13 years ago

I have always felt Matthew's performance in this film is superb, and like others have said I find totally lose him in Shaw when I watch this film.

Public appreciation of this film was partly a victim of bad timing...the film was released a year before Ken Burns' Civil War really awakened alot of people to our history. One wonders if the film would have done better if it had been released in, say, 1991.

It is not our abilities that show who we truly are...it is our choices

[–] burntorange 11 years ago

USA.. that photo is amazing their ears even look the same. The facial hair is identical and their stature is very similar too

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 13 years ago

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!"

[–] TimmyElkinson 13 years ago

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 13 years ago

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.

[–] thrwmbsbgkdoepmcjrmrdw 13 years ago

I agree 100%! Without Matthew it just wouldn't have been as good. He is diffenitly key in the movie and why it's so good.

[–] digitaldiva 13 years ago

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 11 years ago

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.

[–] cliniquegirl 13 years ago

I 100% agree. I wonder why he wasn't nominated for an Oscar for this role.

[–] toph1980 13 years ago

Because the academy are f ucktards.

--
A picture with a smile - and perhaps, a tear.

[–] LDHRELL2003 10 years ago

The film was not even nominated for Best Picture...Denzel 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.