Is Platoon a glorification of violence?  Is Glory?  I saw both of these
films while I was still in the relative age range of the soldiers portrayed,
and I found both films to be terrifying.  They show war as realistically and
therefore as violently as possible, and this is terrifying.  It is simply a
matter of definition.  If you see terror as a goal, as something worth
striving for (perhaps to be overcome through bravery?), then these films
definitely glorify war.  If not, they serve as anti-war messages.  I left
both films with the exact same feeling:  Thank God I wasn't there.
     If we want to examine out-and-out glorifications of war, let us examine
films that gloss over the reality of the subject.  Take the Chuck Norris
films, the James Bond films, the Die Hard films, etc., etc.  These films
have the same amount of violence, but it is not as realistic, and thus not
as terrifying.  This is what desensitizes us to violence:  the idea that you
can shoot at the enemy and never be shot, the idea that "good guys" and "bad
guys" are clearly defined groups, and the idea that violence can be
relatively painless and fun, as long as you're the "good guy".
     The night battle of Platoon, the final assault in Glory, (and even the
firefight in Forrest Gump, I dare say.)  do not glorify violence as much as
they display the distastefulness and horror of it.  This is why we react so
strongly to these movies and not the fluff action flics.