Paths of Glory Reviews and Ratings


  • malacaynomuerto
    January 27, 2009
    malacaynomuerto
    película totalmente anti militarista de frente nos hace cuestionarnos acerca de la guerra es el consejo de guerra mas heavy que se ha podido ver en el cine
  • iamthethinman
    December 21, 2008
    iamthethinman
    What can you say about a movie like this. Classic on all points. It even rebelled against the Hollywood status quo, but had to sacrifice some for its studio dogmatism. Still great.
  • instantconstant
    December 7, 2008
    instantconstant
    one of the greatest anti-war movies of all times. well written screenplay and realistic war scenes.
  • Kavu
    November 16, 2008
    Kavu
    One of the best anti-war movies ever. Douglas and Kubrick do an excellent job.
  • yona71
    November 15, 2008
    yona71
    Stanley Kubrick's 1957 antiwar masterpiece starring Kirk Douglas as a French Colonel in his battle-worn regiment of World War 1. Under the threat of German artillery in the trenches of warfare, Kubrick's brilliant use of cinematography, music, lighting, etc. result in some of the...( read more) most effective battle sequences ever filmed.
    The camera work in the trenches is gripping, and an utter reminder of how war truly is hell, and how soldiers are thought so little of as a fault of selfish, personal ambitions and self indulgence resulting in senseless executions.
    Though the film touches on themes of courage and loyalty in warfare, it's more about the historical realities of World War 1, and military leaders who orchestrate the deaths of thousands from the comforts of their luxurious headquarters.
  • mattrrough
    November 6, 2008
    mattrrough
    At the time of this rating, this film was the #43 best film of all time according to the voters at IMDb. I, on the other hand, would have trouble putting it in my top 43 WAR movies of all time! Although Kirk Douglas is at his best (or close to it), and I did like the way the film...( read more) was shot; it just came across too forced. I'm not a huge fan of Stanley Kubrick, but that's not why I didn't love it. It's extremely anti-war/anti-patriotism, but that's not necessarily why I didn't love it either. There were just to many elements of exaggerated insubordination on the parts of the soldiers. Whether they were right, or not, doesn't matter that much to me. I'll admit, I've never been a soldier in the army, but I cannot imagine one where enlisted men blatantly disrespect their commanding officers the way they do in this movie.
  • PvtCaboose91
    November 5, 2008
    PvtCaboose91
    General Broulard: "Colonel Dax, you're a disappointment to me. You've spoiled the keenness of your mind by wallowing in sentimentality. You really did want to save those men, and you were not angling for Mireau's command. You are an idealist - and I pity you as I would ...( read more)the village idiot. We're fighting a war, Dax, a war that we've got to win. Those men didn't fight, so they were shot. You bring charges against General Mireau, so I insist that he answer them. Wherein have I done wrong?"
    Colonel Dax: "Because you don't know the answer to that question, I pity you."


    The bitter, numbing inanity of war and the exploitation of military ranks is made brazenly obvious in Stanley Kubrick's Paths of Glory. Vehemently an anti-war feature, this compelling masterpiece is a piercing attack on the military hierarchy, and a film that proved so controversial it was banned in France until 1975 and unreleased in Spain under Franco's rule.

    This was Kubrick's fourth feature film (previously he'd directed 1953's Fear and Desire, 1955's Killer Kiss, and 1956's The Killing), but this blistering indictment of military politics made a name for the young director. What's so startling - and impressive - about Kubrick's storytelling in Paths of Glory is the cold, matter-of-fact manner in which the film unfolds. As the anti-war statement develops, all rage and dismay becomes targeted at war itself instead of individuals. The product is an unforgettable, enthralling landmark war movie; a significant lesson in humanity and social incompetence. Decades later the power and intensity of the film still resonates.

    Paths of Glory explores the whole spectrum of misguided personalities at times of war. The setting is 1916, during the latter period of World War II. The French and German armies are dug into trenches in a hopeless stalemate. The impatient French General Staff pass an order to take a strategic German hill known as the "Anthill". This would be an obvious suicidal charge, yet the Generals are all-too-willing to risk the lives of their soldiers. A reluctant Colonel Dax (Douglas) is handed the assignment. Despite the knowledge that possibly 60% of his soldiers will die, he has little choice. As Dax leads his men, the chaos and mayhem results in the soldiers becoming pinned down in dangerous territory. The mission is an utter failure. The furious generals are embarrassed about the defeat, and cover up their abject blunder by selecting scapegoats: three soldiers from Dax's regiment who'll be court marshalled for cowardice under fire and made an example of.

    Inspired by Humphrey Cobb's book as well as a string of real newspaper articles, Stanley Kubrick's 87-minute Paths of Glory briskly moves from a misconceived attack to the courtroom trial following it. The powerful Generals depicted in the film are merely corrupt, self-centred marionettes strung up to participate in a game of profligacy and opportunism at the most inappropriate of times. In the somewhat short but gripping attack sequence, Kubrick manages to portray the carnage and the horrors of war in a succession of remarkable images that set the stage for the events to follow. The film views war in terms of power. Those higher up in the ranks have the power to simply court marshal any random soldier. How can any man who isn't standing side-by-side with these men at the front lines possess the arrogance to accuse them of cowardice? As the story unfolds, this question is literally screaming at the viewer. The truth of the matter is on the screen for all to see, yet the Generals play the ignorance card. All we can hope is that sanity will somehow prevail. The underlying subtext concerns the abuse of power and the consequences of not standing against it.

    Paths of Glory is astonishingly photographed. The captivating black and white imagery makes this one of the most memorable and authentic-looking anti-war films in the history of cinema. Even during the early days of his career, Stanley Kubrick's camera movements are graceful and masterful. The courtroom scene is particularly stunning and admirably unconventional. Whenever we expect Kirk Douglas to deliver an amazing, long, inspirational speech, the Generals counter these possibilities. At 87 minutes, the film is extremely concise and to the point. By circumventing the clichés and challenging an audience's expectation of a happy ending, the film is all the more devastating and compelling.

    There's an assortment of top-notch performances from head to toe. Kirk Douglas is brilliant as Colonel Dax. He's the only high-ranking character in the film with a hint of veracity. As the Generals defy respect for human life with their orders, Dax stands up to them. Even when offered a promotion he bluntly refuses in a series of insults. Douglas is energetic and charismatic. It is his wisdom, sincerity and determination that make the intolerable injustice we witness so despicable. In Douglas' Dax we see all the qualities of a true hero without glorifying the character in any way.
    George Macready is outstanding as the pompous, twisted, fictional French commander General Paul Mireau who possesses not an ounce of sympathy for his embattled troops. In the face of a shell-shocked soldier he offers nothing but blunt insults and orders to have the man removed from the regiment. His character also wilfully orders a suicide mission, and then in embarrassment he perversely finds a scapegoat to use in order to direct the blame away from him. Macready is authoritative and, frankly, quite terrifying.
    There is only one single flaw in the film which unfortunately reverberates to other areas: lack of French accents. Soldiers are of different accents, such as American. It destroys one aspect of the film's authenticity. The fact that the soldiers are supposedly French is therefore only evident in the dialogue mentioning it.

    Overall, Paths of Glory is a timeless and compelling masterpiece, and certainly one of Stanley Kubrick's best movies. Anti-war films of this calibre are few and far between in this current age of cinema. Unfortunately, this is a film seen by relatively few. It even missed out on a spot on the AFI Top 100! Classics are far too unfairly overlooked in this day and age. With a brilliant ensemble cast, enthralling cinematography and an effective script, Paths of Glory is an outstanding essay on the madness of conflict, both in war and in politics. The terse and remorseless final flourish is one of the most emotionally devastating endings in Kubrick's career. You won't soon forget it.


    "I apologize... for not being entirely honest with you. I apologize for not revealing my true feelings. I apologize, sir, for not telling you sooner that you're a degenerate, sadistic old man. And you can go to hell before I apologize to you now or ever again!"
  • daakmore
    November 5, 2008
    daakmore
    heartbreaking story about the disconnect between commanders and the troops in the trench in WW1.
  • airtonyli
    November 1, 2008
    airtonyli
    Hello, there soldier. Ready to kill more Germans?
  • michaelcorleone
    October 25, 2008
    michaelcorleone
    This anti-war film still has a lot of impact. Kubrick's visual and structural mastery bring the story to life beautifully. Extremely disturbing and brutal, this is a message movie that actually works.
  • johnredmond15
    October 24, 2008
    johnredmond15
    Still packs one hell of a punch, you'd be a tough man not to cry. Actually you'd be quite soulless.
  • highgamer6969
    October 16, 2008
    highgamer6969
    Oldie but a goodie...
  • TheJuniorEbert
    October 16, 2008
    TheJuniorEbert
    It is somewhat uncommon for me to underestimate a movie. So it was with Paths of Glory. I expected it to be good; I didn't expect it to be THIS good. On a very upfront and basic level this film is an excellent - allbeit somewhat disturbing - look at the disparity between the clas...( read more)s differences in the early 20th century militaries of most countries, which was a reflection of the class differences and struggles of those societies as a whole. The indifference of the aristocratic officer corps towards the hardships and sufferings of the lower class foot soldiers is characterized by the central conflict in this film, which portrays 3 common soldiers of the French army during WWI (selected by random and vengeful means) put on trial for cowardice in the face of the enemy, in order to discipline their respective units for failing to achieve a near-impossible strategic objective. Kirk Douglas admirably stars as the mid-level officer who knows what his men must endure because he chooses to endure it beside them. He is given the unenviable task of defending his men before a biased tribunal, whilst simultaneously trying to expose the callousness and treachery of his commanding officer who not only ordered the court martial but ordered artillery to fire on his own men during the assault in order to press them forward. The French were understandably none-too-pleased with this film, to the point where Germany (less than two decades after WWII) refused to show this film in order to maintain good relations with them. It is, of course, not meant as a specific indictment against the French but as an honest and dramatic look at the nature of armed conflict and of human society as a whole and is one of Kubrick's finer moments in filmmaking. A terrific anti-war film that avoids over-sentimentality.
  • gsaonline
    October 3, 2008
    gsaonline
    The best movie ever.
  • catbox9
    October 1, 2008
    catbox9
    Stanley Kubrick's Paths of Glory is a film depicting World War 1. In the beginning of the film, a French general orders an attack on a hill despite protest from the colonel to whom he gives these orders. It is obvious from the beginning that the attack is nothing but a suicide mi...( read more)ssion, but the troops attempt to proceed losing many men in the process before abandoning the mission. In an attempt to cover up his own incompetence, the general orders 100 (later reduced to 3) French soldiers to be executed for cowardice. They are court-martialed and their defense attorney is the colonel who protested the attack to begin with. Overall, this film is pretty good. My main complaint would be the ending. Just moments before the ending, Kirk Douglas delivers some pretty good dialogue but then there's a scene that seems mostly irrelevant right after this. I would say that ending the film two minutes sooner would leave a much better final impression. While I can appreciate what Kubrick was attempting to do at the end with a singer at a bar, I feel like this ending sequence had very little to do with the rest of the movie and totally ruined an otherwise great ending.

    The film stars, amongst others, Kirk Douglas. Although this type of film probably doesn't necessitate any big stars, Douglas is still quite good and I can't imagine the film with someone else. His speeches during the trial and at just before the end of the film are both quite well-done.

    Although Kubrick denies that any of his war films were necessarily anti-war, this film does carry a reasonably strong anti-war message. It isn't as strong as in other World War 1 films such as All Quiet on the Western Front, but is stronger than in Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket. Kubrick instead said this film was anti-authoritarian ignorance, and I would agree with this assessment as well. This theme was revisited in several of Kubrick's later films and is probably much stronger in something like Dr. Strangelove.

    Overall, this is a pretty solid effort. As mentioned earlier, I did not care for the last two minutes of the film at all. Generally having someone sing a song in a bar at the end of a film wouldn't be that big of a deal, but this film had a perfect ending just moments earlier and I will therefore penalize the film's final score rather severely as a result of this ending. Even with this rather major flaw, the film is pretty good and a must-see for fans of war movies.

    82.5/100
    B-

    UP NEXT: Still more Stanley Kubrick, The Killing.
  • HuskersNC949597
    September 22, 2008
    HuskersNC949597
    French soldiers charged with cowardice may sound redundant, and it is, but that's OK.
  • wieland007
    September 15, 2008
    wieland007
    Good warfilm which really shows how pointless many soldiers die in a war. All because of the glory or pride of one man.

    There is something missing in this film, which could have made the film a bit longer, but other than that, it was good.
  • jfkbuff
    September 15, 2008
    jfkbuff
    An overwhelmingly great movie!
  • placeinthesun455
    September 5, 2008
    placeinthesun455
    while the dialogue was only adequate compared to the overall story, this was nonetheless a compelling film with strong characters and powerful themes of standing against blind authority and a corrupt hierarchy. some of the acting seemed a bit off, but Douglas and Macready were s...( read more)pot on pro and antagonists. typical of Kubrick, the camerawork was also subtle yet effective.
  • technoted
    August 9, 2008
    technoted
    downright amazing you must watch this film
  • brad2534
    August 8, 2008
    brad2534
    Honestly, how friggin good was Kubrick? This movie is extremely powerful and one of his best.
  • alexroy69
    August 4, 2008
    alexroy69
    Troisième long métrage de Stanley Kubrick, alors âgé de seulement vingt-neuf ans. Se déroulant à l'époque de la première Guerre Mondiale, on y raconte l'histoire d'un colonel qui se rebelle contre ses supérieurs après que ceux-ci aient envoyé ses hommes dans une mission suicide, ...( read more)puis condamné trois d'entre eux à mort pour leur échec. Y est ainsi révélée toute l'absurdité du système de justice interne de l'armée.

    Les fans de Kubrick reconnaîtront sa griffe, mais ceux qui n'ont pas apprécié son travail plus connu pourront quand même se délecter de cette oeuvre intelligente et sans fioritures. Le style de réalisation un peu impersonnel du cinéaste n'était pas encore tout à fait installé, ce qui plaira ou déplaira. J'ai beaucoup apprécié le travail de caméra, atteignant son paroxysme dans la scène de l'attaque suicide tournée avec brio. Il s'agit plutôt d'un film sur la guerre que d'un film de guerre, à l'instar de Full Metal Jacket. Kirk Douglas y est excellent. À voir.
  • CruzCostelo
    July 27, 2008
    CruzCostelo
    DO I REALLY NEED TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT A KUBRICK MOVIE?

    let me just say two words about this one: DELICIOUSLY DIRECTED.
  • luiser2gh
    July 26, 2008
    luiser2gh
    Por alguna razon pensaba que esta pelicula iba a ser aburrida y una de las mas debiles de Kubrick, pero resulto siendo una pelicula muy interesante y con una fuerte direccion.-
  • JATbobDYLAN93
    July 21, 2008
    JATbobDYLAN93
    A great movie, i understand why its a classic
  • littlecharmer1959
    July 20, 2008
    littlecharmer1959
    War, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing.

    An early masterpiece by Kubrick with an incredibly moving ending.
  • sanjurosamurai
    July 15, 2008
    sanjurosamurai
    a great war movie from kubrick. douglas puts in a great performance and the story was well told and very profound. this doesnt play like an anti war film as many claim, it plays more like a film on the evaluation of the philosophy of war. i was drawn into the dilema and emotio...( read more)n stirred as an injustice was served. great film.
  • virgosmg
    July 5, 2008
    virgosmg
    Profoundy intense and a great work of art, even though a bit negative.
  • AgentLexi2132
    June 26, 2008
    AgentLexi2132
    ''Colonel Dax, you're a disappointment to me. You've spoiled the keenness of your mind by wallowing in sentimentality. You really did want to save those men, and you were not angling for Mireau's command. You are an idealist - and I pity you as I would the village idiot. We're...( read more) fighting a war, Dax, a war that we've got to win. Those men didn't fight, so they were shot. You bring charges against General Mireau, so I insist that he answer them. Wherein have I done wrong?''

    ''Because you don't know the answer to that question, I pity you.''


    When soldiers in WW1 refuse to continue with an impossible attack, their superiors decide to make an example of them.

    Kirk Douglas: Col. Dax

    Paths Of Glory was not anti-war more a case of against men playing God among many. Stanley Kubrick shows this and executes in a manner suitable for a film with a great point to make.

    The time is World War I, French and German armies are stuck in an entrenched draw. Col. Dax played by Douglas is ordered by his overbearing superior Gen. Mireau, as George Macready, to take a German high position known as the Ant Hill. Mireau is pushing for a promotion, so when Dax's soldiers are pushed back, he takes it personally and orders soldiers under Dax's command executed for cowardice. Dax takes their defense.

    There are those who say director Stanley Kubrick had difficulty in his films with understanding and harnessing human feelings. Paths Of Glory proves them wrong. It's less than 90 minutes from beginning to end yet detailed throughout with a kind of raw emotion that pulls you in.

    This is best displayed in the film's shocking ending. Great scenes throughout, whether it's Dax leading his doomed command across No-Man's Land or two soldiers in the evening asking each other earnestly if it's better to be shot or alternatively blown to pieces.

    You never glimpse so much as one German soldier in the entire film, even during the big attack. The underlying of the movie may be war is hell to go through but it doesn't help when you are led by those with their own selfish agendas.

    Douglas is perfect of course, and impressive presence throughout, whether bucking up his men or bandying words with slick Gen. Broulard as Adolphe Menjou.
    But Macready is the one who leaves the strongest imprint. Clearly nuts at the start, Mireau seems utterly blissful in his ignorant selfishness, proclaiming himself ''the only completely innocent man in this whole affair". The shame of it is that compared to Broulard, he ends up being so.

    Great supporting performances, too, by Ralph Meeker, Joe Turkel, and especially Timothy Carey as three condemned soldiers.
    Wayne Morris as a slippery lieutenant and Richard Anderson, later Steve Austin's tan boss on The Six-Million-Dollar Man, as Mireau's unctuous chief of staff, dedicated to seeing the men executed yet showing some understated remorse at the end.

    No attempts are made by any of the cast at French accents, the only accents audible here are Brooklynese. Like another screen classic Amadeus, this makes the story feel less exotic, which I wouldn't of minded, it's all to make it more natural to Americans sadly.

    Ultimately and to conclude, this is Kubrick's film though. In shot after memorable shot, he serves up a classic tale that has economy, raw emotional power, and the drive for justice and right.

    Kubrick made many exceptional films, but this Paths of Glory is definitely among them and one of his earliest.
  • lucasaq
    June 21, 2008
    lucasaq
    War films are a Hollywood staple starting somewhere back when All Quiet on the Western front gained prominence for being a great adaptation of the famed novel by Erich Maria Remarque. This 1957 film continued that great tradition with another look at the insanity aroused by war. ...( read more)In this instance it explores the insanity that can be aroused within an armies own ranks and the blind obsessions and principles of some individuals. Kubrick is never one for pulling punches in his films and with a classic star at his disposal in Kirk Douglas; he goes for the jugular of the issue. The humanity of the issue and corruptness, but the great aspect of the film is that it never loses site of the fact that everyone can make mistakes and that humanity of everyone in the army is necessary.

    The backdrop of this film is based in fact. A certain General George Broulard, played with his usual air by Adolphe Menjou, comes to another commanding officer whom he manipulates into ordering a suicide run on the enemies? position. General Paul Mireau, played with a particularly hateful attitude by George Macready, then carries down the orders to his brilliant Colonel Dax, Kirk Douglas. Mireau in turns forces Dax to ready his men for the insane attack run. This is the setting, what follows of course is the utter failure of the attack and the anger of the superiors especially Mireau. Mireau wants to kill some hundred troops as an example of the men?s cowardice, because during the attack he sees about roughly half of Dax?s troops refusing to advance out of the trenches.

    The film?s strength is not in the message so much as the human face Kubrick gives the soldiers zeroing first on a moment of true cowardice committed by Lieutenant Roget. The Lieutenant is ordered to go on a reconnaissance mission the night before the attack by Dax, and, whether out of fear of going into No Man?s Land or just a bad drinking problem, he gets drunk before going out with two of his men. As the trio goes out, he makes rash decisions, splitting up the party and fleeing at the first signs of trouble in the process letting fly a grenade that kills one of his men. The other man on the mission stays behind to see this and makes it back alive. This seemingly smaller story inside the big story is key though I think because it shows the humanity of the issue. What gives the commanding General up in his safe booth the authority to call his men cowards? He cannot possibly have a feel for the issues of the moment as Colonel Dax does in seeing his men bottled up in the trenches because they will be slaughtered upon going over the top.

    The last third of the film is devoted to the court-martial of three of Dax?s men over the issue of cowardice because Dax has managed through his form weight of being a premier lawyer to get the Generals to agree to settle for just three men?s life at steak instead of the hundred originally discussed to show an example. The three men in question are either chosen by the commanding officers by random of because they are generally in disfavor as is Corporal Philippe Paris, the man who witnessed Roget?s cowardice. Each falls apart as the date of their never in question execution approaches.

    I will not reveal much more about the plot and the ending, but I will say that this film stands as a stellar war film dealing with great issues of warfare and the horrors it creates. The performances are gripping and the story gives a fair tone to the whole issue although as is usual of a Kubrick film the protagonist is generally in opposition to the authority throughout the film a effort that Kirk Douglas does with his usual ferocity, nobody can quite getting as seemingly hot tempered as Douglas. He is a yeller of extraordinary talent. Despite being roughly 51 years old this film still holds up quite well with great cinematography work and art direction.
  • supdawg1985
    June 19, 2008
    supdawg1985
    Love or hate him, Stanley Kubrick was a very talented director. He has covered and conquered a wide range of genres from political satire, to artsy sci-fi, to flat out horror, but it was a war movie that really got him noticed when he made the devastating "Paths of Glory". Not ...( read more)an epic like some of his others, but instead, Kubrick elects to go straight for the jugular with a powerful anti-war message. Based on a novel, the movie takes us to World War I as French Colonel Dax (Kirk Douglas) is ordered to send his troops on an attack to capture a key enemy stronghold. Even though it is practically a suicide mission, Dax follows the orders from his higher ranking officers, which is one example here of the struggle between chain of command and personal ethics. The attempt is short-lived as many soldiers are barraged by enemy fire, and it forces the others to hastily retreat, but this is not taken lightly by General Mireau, as it prompts him to court martial three soldiers for cowardice. What ensues is a compelling court drama that examines the difference between bravery and sensibility. This is a somewhat similar movie to Clint Eastwood's "Letters From Iwo Jima", in it's promotion for human dignity, and while it isn't as personal or descriptive, it is very moving in it's stance that men should not be simply disposable. To add depth, there is also an underlying story of callousness and personal triumph by the French generals, who pose well as unsympathetic antagonists. From a technical stand point, it is well shot, especially during the trench scenes, and although the battle scene wasn't anything spectacular, Kubrick makes up for it with his visual capturing of emotion, particularly towards the end. With the help of a great dramatic performance by Douglas and a timeless anti-war study, this has been ranked as one of the best war movies ever, and is definitely worth seeing.
  • galeriadeshuy
    June 14, 2008
    galeriadeshuy
    La mejor cinta antibélica en la historia, el gran Stanley nos regala otra entrega con grandes actuaciones, y sobretodo la historia, un general es ordenado a llevar a cabo una misión imposible, sólo para despues poner en el ojo del huracán la moralidad del ejército americano. Un f...( read more)inal impactante acompaña a esta (otra vez!!!) obra maestra
  • pier007
    June 14, 2008
    pier007
    Kubrick's best film. From the narrow, noisy and dirty trenches to the opulent, wide and silent high rank officers' estates. One of the most compelling and touching anti-war statements. Kirk Douglas is simply amazing here. The ending magnifies even more this true cinematic marvel.
  • GeorgeBailey88
    June 11, 2008
    GeorgeBailey88
    A film that basically tells us that the men who control and start the wars are evil human beings without conscience or a moral barometer. Probably my favorite Stanley Kubrick film. The image of Kirk Douglas as Col.Dax readying his men as we get a front shot of him walking through...( read more) the trenches with bombs going off over head makes the film even better. Great camera work and truly a depressing story of the reality of war.

    Soldiers, not only are you fighting for your lives against the enemy, youre fighting against your generals as well. Maybe thats the main point here: in war, were only fighting ourselves.
  • sanjirou
    June 8, 2008
    sanjirou
    Watched it at school. The big funny guy who starts crying is the only memorable part. An okay movie.
  • scottydgibbs
    May 29, 2008
    scottydgibbs
    great kubrick filmdealing with a true incident in world war 1 involving french soldiors who refused to go charge to there deaths when ordered, and there eventual trial by french goverment, and kurk douglas as sergent defending them, very controvershal for france and was banned fo...( read more)r many years, great direction showing typical kubrick tricks, the war scenes look terrific, and photoghraphy as usual top form, possible conteder best film of the 50s with twelve angry men, and my second fav kubrick after dr strangelove
  • Joby80207
    May 25, 2008
    Joby80207
    Arguably, Kubrick's best film. Definitely up there as one of the best anti-war movies ever made. Its message still is applicable to today's current events.
  • calvaggio
    May 15, 2008
    calvaggio
    Kubrick's first work of genius, and the first film with a percussion only score. Kirk Douglas is brilliant as a pragmatic idealist fighting a futile battle for justice in wartime.
  • villainforhire
    April 27, 2008
    villainforhire
    one of the best from both Kubrick and Douglas. the last 10 minutes or so of this film are absolutely perfect.
  • closedmouth
    April 27, 2008
    closedmouth
    It's really incredible to watch this after seeing the others first. All the trademarks are there, if a little less obviously, and it's just as moving and compelling as everything else he's ever done. I love this man.
  • Lustra
    April 15, 2008
    Lustra
    You see a lot of similarity between this and Full Metal Jacket. For one, the score is repetitive in a good way and the movie ends with a song. Secondly, Kubrick also shows in detail how war can cause people to breakdown. The cinematography of the battle scenes was amazing for its...( read more) time, but the visuals and sound effects were another story. For some reason, rapidly fired bullets were made to sound like a Stormtrooper blaster on automatic. Also, you can't really see bullets or see who is getting hit on the battlefield, they just drop dead. You can't really blame the movie for this though, as this was relatively low budget as well as 50 years old.
  • DrZeek
    April 15, 2008
    DrZeek
    Corporal Paris: See that cockroach? Tomorrow morning, we'll be dead and it'll be alive. It'll have more contact with my wife and child than I will. I'll be nothing, and it'll be alive.
    [Ferol smashes the roach]
    Private Ferol: Now you got the edge on him.

    Here's a great movie th...( read more)at is a war film / courtroom drama / political commentary all rolled into one great Stanley Kubrick movie.

    It combines strong acting, solid direction (love those tracking shots), an excellent war sequence, a great story with a solid script full of memorable lines, all into a wonderfully executed film.

    Kirk Douglas stars as Col. Dax. The film is set on the French side of WWI. A general orders the siege of a German combat site, but due to impossible odds, the men under Col. Dax's command all fall back.

    Because of this, the general seeking greater fame and protection for himself orders one man from each unit, chosen at random to be executed on charges of cowardice.

    Douglas, seeing the lunacy in this must now try and fight for the rights of these men.

    One thing that made me happy right off the bat was something that should always be done. If you make a movie taking place in another country where the men would normally speak another language, what is the point of having them have the accent of that area, opposed to either having people speak the language or just not bother. Kubrick recognizes this and has everyone speak naturally, no fake accents.

    What really matters here is how good this movie is on every other front. Douglas is great. The men on trial are all very good. The movie looks great, doing what it can on its small budget, and confined areas in the trenches.

    The movie is only 85 minutes long, but moves so quickly yet resonates so strongly. And it doesn't even cop out at the end, the whole thing just comes together so damn well.

    Great movie.

    General Mireau: I can't understand these armchair officers, fellas trying to fight a war from behind a desk, waving papers at the enemy, worrying about whether a mouse is gonna run up their pants leg.
    Colonel Dax: I don't know, General. If I had the choice between mice and Mausers, I think I'd take the mice every time.
  • ManeshS
    April 7, 2008
    ManeshS
    Two Kubricks movie back to back & it was like experiencing masterful & versatile film-making.. I'm now his avid fan..

    Set in World War I, Paths of Glory is about the trench war-fare between France & germany.. It's about an impossible assault on a heavily-fortified enemy posit...( read more)ion by one of the commanding general - who believes this outcome would gain him a promotion..

    It is realistically shot & beautifully photographed.. Kirk Douglas as Col. Dax was terrific & the two generals were also fantastic.. The Final court-martial execution was just simply mind-blowing..

    Paths of Glory can be rightly be described as one of the greatest anti-war film. Truly a masterpiece..Terrific watch..

Summary

Paths of Glory Summary