'Glory' Returning To Theaters For 30th Anniversary

Edward Zwick's Civil War drama Glory is turning 30 this year, and the film will march back into theaters to mark the occasion. Fathom Events, Sony Pictures, and Turner Classic Movies, have partnered to show Glory on 600 movie screens around the U.S. on two select days. The screenings will feature  pre- and post-film commentary that delves deeper into the production.

Glory Returning to Theaters

Glory is "the heart-stopping story of the first black regiment to fight for the North in the Civil War", starring Matthew Broderick, Denzel Washington, Cary Elwes and Morgan Freeman. In the film, "Broderick and Elwes are the idealistic young Bostonians who lead the regiment; Freeman is the inspirational sergeant who unites the troops; and Denzel Washington...is the runaway slave who embodies the indomitable spirit of the 54th Regiment of Massachusetts." Washington won his first Oscar for his role in Glory, thanks to his powerful performance.

The film wasn't a smash-hit, but critics lauded the movie, and it's reputation remains strong (especially among high school history teachers, who love to show this thing whenever they get the chance).

This year marks the 30th anniversary of the film's release, and you'll have a chance to catch it on the big screen as a result. Per Forbes, "Glory will be shown on more than 600 movie screens around the U.S. on Sunday, July 21 at 1:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. and Wednesday, July 24 at 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. (all times local)." At these screenings, "TCM Primetime host Ben Mankiewicz will present special pre- and post-film commentary that offers even more background information on the film."

Glory holds up relatively well, although I don't know if audiences are clamoring to see it on the big screen again. Perhaps the addition of commentary will draw in film buffs, or Matthew Broderick fans who really want to get their fix. For all the praise Glory earned, it's not without its flaws. I think Roger Ebert's review hit the nail on the head:

Watching "Glory," I had one recurring problem. I didn't understand why it had to be told so often from the point of view of the 54th's white commanding officer. Why did we see the black troops through his eyes – instead of seeing him through theirs? To put it another way, why does the top billing in this movie go to a white actor? I ask, not to be perverse, but because I consider this primarily a story about a black experience and do not know why it has to be seen largely through white eyes..."Glory" is a strong and valuable film no matter whose eyes it is seen through. But there is still, I suspect, another and quite different film to be made from this same material.