Paths of Glory (1957) User Reviews (533)

"Let the men have a few minutes more"

[Steffi_P · 9/10 · 15 October 2006]

Although Kubrick's films are marked by their massive variation of genre and tone, one theme that crops up again and again is a strong anti-war sentiment, and this was never stated more strongly than in Paths of Glory. A relatively early Kubrick picture and, despite coming before what is considered his classic period, it is one of his best.

In contrast to his previous picture, The Killing, a definite Kubrick style is beginning to emerge now. One notable example is the scene in which General Mireau tours the trenches, walking towards the audience with the camera retreating away from him. This technique would be repeated years later in Kubrick's other war film, Full Metal Jacket. There is also something about the arrangement of objects in the frame, as well the tracking and dollying which hints towards his more familiar later style. His recurring chess motif appears as well, albeit subtly. At the court martial the floor is chequered, and the soldiers on trial are seated with guards standing behind them as if they are pawns about to be sacrificed.

The light and contrast in this picture is put to good effect. The palatial officers' headquarters is light and airy with few shadows. The trenches are gloomy and cramped. Kubrick was becoming a real master at contrasting locations and getting the look of a place just right.

The use of music in Paths of Glory is bold and brilliant. The pre-recorded score is almost entirely percussive – all rhythmic sounds with no melody. A weird kettle drum track is used to help build tension in the night patrol scene, while in the climactic scene the funeral march drumming instills a sense of dread, further heightened by having the shots edited in time to the beat. In the emotional final scene we get the complete opposite – a beautiful vocal melody. This has all the more impact after hearing nothing but militaristic drums for the rest of the film.

The casting is absolutely flawless. While there are no big names apart from leading man Kirk Douglas and the now elderly Adolphe Menjou, there isn't a single weak performance. The despair and resentment of the condemned soldiers feels so absolutely real. In contrast the smugness and fake sympathy of the upper class officers is brilliantly portrayed.

Throughout his career Kubrick never seemed to be particularly keen on blatantly emotional moments. Paths of Glory is the exception. The later scenes are incredibly poignant and moving, and the final moments in the soldier's bar are what makes it a masterpiece more than anything else – the icing on the cake. However it's quite probable that Kubrick regretted this as an overly sentimental approach, as woolly sentimentalism was a major gripe of his when he worked on Spartacus. Whatever the case, he certainly reined in the stirring stuff considerably after this, to the point where his later films became characterised by their understatement of emotions.

Stands the Test of Time

[WriterDave · 9/10 · 28 July 2007]

An arrogant French general (a superb George Macready) orders his men on a suicide mission and then has the gall to try to court marshal and execute three of them for cowardice in the face of the enemy. A former lawyer turned colonel (Kirk Douglas in his prime) is the voice of reason against gross injustice. This excellently staged and wonderfully acted production is as much an acting showcase for Douglas as it is a directorial masterstroke by a young Stanley Kubrick who adapted this to the screen from a novel based on actual accounts.

Kubrick displays a great control of sound effects and camera movement in the brief but effective battle scenes that expertly depict the controlled chaos that was trench warfare during WWI. Things get juicier during the ensuing courtroom battle where the deafening disparity between the elite who propagate and profit from war and the common citizens who suffer and die in war is shown with great lucidity.

Unlike later Kubrick epics, this runs at a crisp 90 minutes, though suffers briefly from a slow and awkwardly staged opening ten minutes before Douglas comes on screen. Ultimately, this holds up very well to modern scrutiny thanks to the flawlessness of Kurbick's craft, the amazing ensemble acting, and the surprising depth of its philosophical and psychological pondering. "Paths of Glory" is more anti-arrogance than anti-war, and is unapologetically sentimental and pro-soldier. As such, much can still be gleaned from its message.

War, What is it Good For...

[Xstal · 8/10 · 9 October 2022]

You've been posted to the front, to serve your country in the war, now they want you to go over, and face the enemy once more, only problem that you have, is you know it's certain death, there'll be no gains made here today, but there'll be, almighty mess.

As powerful a film as ever existed against those who pursue war as a solution, painting a portrait of the incompetence of command and the futility of armed conflict, as French soldiers on the front during WW1 discover the penalty for disobedience, the consequence of insubordination and that everyone is accountable, and that nothing's fair, there is no love in war.

Top performances all round, especially from Kirk Douglas, and a director that went on to make his mark quite significantly in the world of film.

Kubrick--a fully-formed genius in 1957.

[Hermit C-2 · 10/10 · 7 July 1999]

At only 29 years of age and in only his second major studio release, Stanley Kubrick showed the world that he was a force to be reckoned with. By the time he died 42 years later his films were epochal events waited for breathlessly by his large band of devotees who considered him a director without equal. He seldom disappointed them.

This movie is set in World War I amidst the incredibly destructive and futile trench warfare between France and Germany. Kirk Douglas plays Frenchman Colonel Dax, who is ordered to make an impossible assault on a heavily-fortified enemy position. The only reason this charge is being made is that his commanding general, played by George Macready, believes that capturing the position will earn him a promotion. When the assault does not go forward under heavy enemy bombardment, the general is infuriated and demands that three men be arbitrarily chosen to stand trial for cowardice, an offense punishable by death. Col. Dax defends these men at their court-martial.

The battle and trial scenes are about as good as have ever been filmed and the high level of tension is sustained throughout the movie. After the film's climax has occurred, Col. Dax goes looking for his troops and finds them relaxing at a cafe. What he and the viewer witness there is possibly the most affecting scene I've ever seen on screen.

Looking at this film in perspective, it's easy to see Kubrick's trademarks even at this early stage of his career. The attention to the composition of his shots reflects his background as a still photographer and foreshadows his other great films to come. I find myself most impressed today with the way he could handle a dramatic story like this one without any innovative techniques or unusual special effects to hide behind, then turn around and make such totally different films like '2001...' and 'Dr. Strangelove...' Other films like 'The Shining' and 'Barry Lyndon' combined a strong story line with breakthrough film techniques. His versatility astonishes me.

Adolphe Menjou also stars as the general who convinces Dax's superior officer to risk the ill-fated charge. Ralph Meeker, Timothy Carey and Joe Turkel give strong performances as the men on trial. Turkel turns up 23 years later in another Kubrick film, 'The Shining,' playing the bartender.

You can take your pick: 'Paths of Glory' can rightly be described as one of the greatest war movies of all, or one of the great anti-war films, or as one of Kubrick's best. Or simply one of the best, period.

An anti-war movie hitting closer to home.

[bmaclach · 10/10 · 3 November 2000]

I consider Paths of Glory as one of the most memorable of Kubrick's entire output. The most remarkable aspect of this pioneer anti-war film is the complete absence of any persons depicting the "real" enemy. Therefore, the significance of the film lay not so much in its anti-war message, but in its brilliant expose of the "monsters within" the general staff, superbly acted by Adolphe Menjou and George Macready. The message here is that the enemy lurks much closer to home. In most war films, whether they glorify or condemn the carnage, there is rarely any venturing at all into the darker side of the politics. This film is a tour de force in its unabashed depiction of just how misguided is the quest for glory as an end in itself; and in the portrayal of the leaders who would shamelessly sacrifice others for their own self aggrandizement. Truly, one of my all time favourite movies.

They Couldn't Take An Ant Hill

[bkoganbing · 10/10 · 2 July 2006]

Almost one hundred years later the concept of that static war of the trenches that was the Western front of World War I is almost unfathomable. After the French army stopped the German offensive at the Battle of the Marne, the French and British armies faced the Germans in a line of trenches that stretched from Belgium to Switzerland. About a quarter of France was occupied for four years in that time. The casualties ran into the millions in that stalemate that gains were only measured in meters.

It was always just one more offensive over the top charging into automatic weapon fire that would break the other guy. Just such an offensive was planned one day in 1916 against a German stronghold dubbed the ant hill.

General George MacReady, promised a promotion by his superior Adolphe Menjou, orders a beaten and tired battalion to charge the ant hill. The attack flops and MacReady looks for scapegoats. He decides after coming down from shooting 100 men to a selected three drawn by lot. The unlucky three are Joseph Turkel, Ralph Meeker, and Timothy Carey.

The commander of the three Kirk Douglas asks to serve as their counsel and he makes a good show of it at the kangaroo court martial they have. But the fix is definitely in.

Except for Spartacus, Kirk Douglas rarely plays straight up heroic types in film. Even his good guys have an edge to them, a dark side. But as Colonel Dax, Douglas is at his most heroic. He may be one dimensional here, but he's great. Especially in that last scene with Adolphe Menjou when he tells the man off in no uncertain terms, mainly because Menjou has misread Douglas's motives.

Menjou and Macready portray two different military types. The arrogant MacReady as versus the very sly Menjou. Not very admirable either of them. Menjou was not very popular at this time in Hollywood because of the blacklist. He favored it very much, his politics were of the extreme right wing. Nevertheless he was a brilliant actor and never better than in this film, one of his last.

The enlisted men are a good bunch also. They're kind of like the posse in The Oxbow Incident, just an ordinary group who become ennobled in martyrdom as they go to the firing squad for the sake of politics.

Paths of Glory is one of the best anti-war films ever made. It ranks right up there with All Quiet on the Western Front which showed the war from the German point of view. Both will be classics 200, 300, a thousand years from now.

The most realistic, most emotionally draining, and most beautifully photographed movie ever made about trench warfare in WW I.

[hptaylor · 10/10 · 15 February 2004]

I think that Stanley Kubrick is the greatest of all film directors, and in my opinion "Paths of Glory" is Kubrick's best film because:

1. It is FAR AND AWAY the most realistic, most emotionally draining, and most beautifully photographed movie ever made about trench warfare in WW I, which has to be considered to be one of the significant episodes in all of human history. The story is fiction, but the events are patterned after some actual mutinies in the French army that took place in 1917.

2. I first saw this film 46 years ago, and it not only made me an avid Kubrick fan for the rest of my life, it made me want to watch it over and over again -- more than 250 times over the years, and every time I see it, I cry at the end (when Kubrick's future wife, and the only woman in the film, sings "The Faithful Hussar", causing the audience of French soldiers to change from a jeering crowd to a hushed, teary-eyed group of lonely men).

3. Everything about the movie is PERFECT!! There are no flaws in the acting, the pace of the movie, the photography, the dialogue, etc. Scene after scene is more powerful and ironic than the preceding one, building to a shattering climax. It is simply a gem.

4. Try as I might to think of actors that could have been substituted in their places, I think the casting for each and every part in the movie really could not have been any better. No one could have been better in their respective roles than George Macready, Adolphe Menjou, Kirk Douglas, Ralph Meeker, and all of the others. Many of these actors appear in Kubrick's other films.

5. Has there ever been a better scene than the one in which one of the condemned soldiers (Ralph Meeker) stares at this cockroach and cries that tomorrow that bug will still be alive and he will be dead. Whereupon one of the other condemned men (the fatalistic Timothy Carey) squashes the cockroach and says "Now you got the edge on him".

6. You could probably change a few things in most of Kubrick's other masterpieces to slightly improve them, but I DEFY anyone to single out anything in "Paths of Glory" that could be improved upon. I could go on and on raving about the beauty and pathos of this film, but I think I will stop here.

Kubrik's First Masterwork

[kamerad · 10/10 · 7 June 2002]

"Paths of Glory" (1957) (and this is personal opinion of course) is Stanley Kubrick's first real masterpiece in what would be a long line of subsequent masterpieces. I know that Kubrick had a reputation for making cold, unemotional films (which is a false impression, but that's the subject for another essay) but I don't believe there are many people who can deny how powerful this film is. Through the editing, camera movement, incredibly realistic dialogue, and a now more fully realized use of irony, Kubrick creates an unforgettable anti-war parable. I realize that my love for this film is incredibly obvious, but I'll try to focus on an analysis of the film rather than a review, but the movie is just so good!

Francois Truffaut once said that there is no such thing as a true anti-war film because the battle scenes make the war look exiting. "Paths of Glory"'s scenes of battle are certainly gripping, but gripping in the way that a nightmare is gripping. There is no way a person can see these scenes and wish they were participating (like the action scenes in say, "The Dirty Dozen"). I vividly recall the scene where three men try to sneak behind enemy lines in the middle of the night. The battlefield is cloaked in darkness. Someone shoots a flare. Silently, a brief burst of light illuminates the field, revealing several corpses strewn over the ground. Darkness quickly covers them up again. Kubrick uses silence and sparse sound effects in this scene like a musical score. Any actual music would be intrusive and rob from the moment, a flaw found in too many otherwise good films of the nineteen fifties (personal opinion of course).

Point of view is used very well in the film to illustrate the inner concerns of the major characters. We see General Mireau's Point of view when he looks through the binoculars at the ant-hill he wants his men to take. When he hands over the binoculars to Colonel Dax, we don't see his view of the ant-hill. Later however, when Dax walks through the trenches before the big battle, we do see his point of view looking at his men. This contrasts with an earlier scene when Mireau walked through the trenches and we did not see his point of view. This clearly illustrates what is important to each man. For Mireau, it is victory at all costs; for Dax, it is the welfare of his soldiers.

For me one of the most impressive things about "Paths of Glory" was it's realistic, yet still poetic, and sometimes even chilling dialogue. This is in sharp contrast to the clever yet purposefuly stagy dialogue of "The Killing".

One scene sticks out my mind where a soldier is nervously rambling about what it would be like to get shot: "Most guys say that if they got shot they'd want to die quick. So what does that tell you? It means there not afraid of getting killed, they're afraid of getting hurt. I think if you're gonna get shot and live, it's best to get shot in the rear than in the head. Why? Because in the rear its just meat, but the head, that's pure bone. Can you imagine what it's like for a bullet to rip through pure bone?" When I first saw this film in a theater, there was some nervous laughter in the audience during this scene. It's true, the scene's dark humour helps illustrate the insanity of the situation.

In my introduction I stated that there was great use of irony in the film. Perhaps the greatest irony is the title. In the end no one finds glory. Dax, although he nobly fights to defend his men wrongly accused of treason, loses the fight. Even though he is later offered a promotion, he turns it down because of his disgust for the army. Mireau is found out to be the cad that he is for ordering his own troops slaughter, and is court marshalled. The film successfully states that in a war even the supposed victors lose something as well.

Kubrick at the height of his powers- a wonderfully atmospheric film about the First World War

[TheLittleSongbird · 10/10 · 9 December 2009]

I saw this movie for the first time on television today, after being persuaded by the reviews I read beforehand praising it. Also I like Kirk Douglas. Although I am not directly familiar with Kubrick's work, a shameful admission I know. Out of what I have seen so far I loved Dr Strangelove and despite only seeing it once while flicking through channels liked The Shining too. Anyway back on target, Paths of Glory was brilliant in my opinion!

Winston Churchill famously claimed that it was this movie that was closest to evoking the atmosphere of WW1 and the military mind. And you know what, he is right. For one thing, Paths of Glory is gorgeously filmed, with relentlessly beautiful cinematography and nice costumes and scenery. The screenplay is sometimes humorous, sometimes moving and sometimes even haunting, either way it was some fine writing. The efficiency of Kubrick's direction is proof of a great man at work.

The performances were superb. As the general who orders the hopeless attack on the German position, Adolphe Menjou's character is perceived as a villain not because of being an officer adhering to the letter, but that he is seen as "the arrogant aristocrat" because of his fear of the working classes than his hatred of the enemy. Among the cast, Timothy Carey and Kirk Douglas especially were outstanding. And the music? That is one rousing score I can tell you. Great movie. 10/10 Bethany Cox

another point of view

[ch-o-jsch · 11 July 2004]

I've read some of the last comments and all I can say is that I think most of you missed the point in this film. No offense to everybody, but I've never regarded this movie as an antiwar movie or something like that. The fact, that my interpretation is not corresponding with most of the others lies in the simple truth that 50% of work is done by the "author" and the rest is done by the audience.

Kubrick used his films as little pieces of the great image of mankind. In all his movies one can see one or multiple depictions of individuals or groups and their feelings and actions, which are not only typical for the protagonists, and antagonists, but also for the viewer.

In the Paths Of Glory this special feeling is perhaps the most ordinary of all: hope.

From the beginning there is no hope in this movie. The battle is lost before it even started. Those three poor creatures are sentenced to death before even the trial had started. And still the audience hopes for a happy end, that the general may stop the execution in the last second. But nothing happens. At this point the viewer is as hopeless as the figures in the movie. The following breakfast scene leaves everybody in a state of paralization, nothing changes.

And then at the end. this helpless and beautiful girl begins to sing a German folk song, which none of the present soldiers knows what it's all about. But the mood of the mob changes away from hate and anger and they all begin to cry like babies. In this very moment hope is reborn and comes back to the battlefield of feelings as the glorious winner. This is when we regain our hope.

Many people wrote, that the last scene didn't fit in the film at all. I would say, that without this scene the movie would have never become the classic it is now. Of course the filming and actor performances are brilliant, but this specialty of the last scene makes this movie unforgettable.

Strong Early Kubrick Anti-War Film

[gary-444 · 6/10 · 4 July 2010]

I watched this, some 53 years before it was made, without knowing anything about it. It transpires that this was a huge advantage in making an objective assessment of a film which has historically divided opinion. The context is important. Made in 1957, it was part of the double feature era when people went to the cinema to see two films, both under 90 minutes. The demand was that a full story be told in that time meaning that far more storytelling ground was often covered then than in modern day films. Certainly here, a longer running time or reduced content would have been a benefit.

It was also made forty years after the end of the First World War in which the film is set. The mass slaughter was being objectively assessed against a backdrop of a "just" second world war, and a futile Korean War which had ended where it started, but at a cost of a million miles. Although essentially an anti-war film , it does not succeed in having universal sentiments which transcend the time.

The first awkwardness is that although the story is set in French lines, a stoutly English and American cast speak and act English. There is always a debate to be had about sub titles, but here the problem is greater than that. Virtually no attempt is made to make the characters, and their setting, feel French. This is so acute that on occasion it is easy to forget whether we are in French, British or America lines.

George Macready is good and well cast as General Mireau, but a donkey leading lions. Yet the opening act offers a crude short hand of a venal, incompetent self-seeking command prepared to sacrifice their men for personal advancement. Kirk Douglas then appears as a more junior commander, Colenel Dax who is cajoled into undertaking an impossible assault on German lines. Dax's lines have no French reference at all, they are the words of an American Hero juxtaposed against a seemingly corrupt, ineffective French Military hierarchy, a narrative which would probably have played well at the time.

The battle scene itself is well handled and convincing as the French launch an attack which is beaten back by the German positions. Yet the pivotal moment when x orders his gunners to fire on their own positions as troops refuse to leave their trenches under withering fire is crassly handled, and a little naive. The tradition of men refusing to follow orders facing death by their own side dates back at least to Roman times and was well practised in the first and second world wars by the Russians and Germans. Absolute obedience to orders IS a military imperative, yet instead we are invited to sympathise with those men who cowered in their trenches letting down those of their comrades who DID follow orders. The artillery officer refuses the order.

Mireau orders that a body of men are summarily shot in the interests of discipline, and Dax, a qualified lawyer, provides his services in defence of the three accused. This act is undoubtedly the strongest as the folly of war is forensically dissected, transcending the moment. But then it falters again as Mireau is threatened with exposure by y for ordering French Artillery to shell their own lines to the Press. The reality is that there was no mass French Press then, the press that did exist was strictly establishment, and there was no chance that the story would have found its way into the paper. Late 1950's mores of American Press practises is superimposed wrongly in time and place.

The summary execution of the token "Cowards" is grandly set, and poignantly portrayed and perhaps the story should have ended there. But instead there is a denouement ( the only thing French about this film!) where Dax's soldiers take some rest and recreation to be entertained by a captured young German woman, later to be Mrs Kubrick in real life. Initially there is a suggestion that she will be gang –raped, but then she sings and unifies then all in a cloying, sentimental ending at odds with the ambitions of the film , but wholly consistent with a commercially acceptable close.

The story is well told, and well acted, and is satisfying with numerous hints of the greatness to come. Its shortcomings, as only Kubrick's second feature are wholly excusable. But the madness of war is more completely explored in "Dr Strangelove", it's visceral side more effectively explored in "Full Metal Jacket" so this is no masterpiece, but a strong part of the Kubrick canon nonetheless.

Gripping Anti-War Film

[gbheron · 10/10 · 19 January 2000]

Paths of Glory is one of the best movies ever made, and possibly the best "war" movie, period. Paths of Glory does not portray war as conflict between armies or individual soldiers arrayed against one another on the battlefield. Nor does it portray the acts of great leaders and heroes of war. No this film takes a different tact.

The setting is the Western Front of 1916 in the trenches with French soldiers faced off against an invisible German force across a barren No Man's Land. The German's are never seen and the dramatic "combat" is between vain French officers as they vie for prestige and honors. The victims are the innocent French soldiers under their command who suffer miserably because of their arrogance and ignorance.

Brilliant, gripping, and definitely a "must see".

One of the great anti-war movies.

[Snake-666 · 7/10 · 31 January 2004]

In an attempt to enhance his own reputation, General Mireau (George MacReady) orders his troops to advance and seize the heavily fortified `Ant Hill' from the German army. Despite realising the hazardous nature of the order, Colonel Dax (Kirk Douglas) reluctantly agrees to lead the charge. As expected the attack goes badly and many French troops lose their lives which results in a large number of men refusing to leave their trenches. General Mireau sees this from his safe position and, refusing to admit that the attack was suicide from the outset, blames the cowardice of those who refused to fight for the devastating outcome of the battle. As a result Mireau demands that three soldiers from the regiment be held accountable and face an immediate court martial followed by death by firing squad. Dax seeks for the French military hierarchy to admit the truth.

This dramatic condemnation of the politics-over-people attitude of military forces during World War I is an all too accurate portrayal of how the conflict resulted in one of the largest and most pointless losses of life in all known history. Taking place in the trenches amidst the height of the futile conflict between France and Germany, director Stanley Kubrick (in only his second feature film) seeks to press home a fiercely anti-war statement backed up by actual historical facts rather than the typical embellishment that can be found in more modern war films. While the story itself is somewhat fanciful, the portrayal of the morally corrupt military leaders that sent hundreds of thousands of men to their deaths for no more reason than to satisfy their own expanded egos and enhance their perfidious reputations is, unfortunately, all too accurate and a powerful indictment of not just the French army, but all those who participated in one of the most bloody conflicts in human history. What makes the film so stinging in its approach is the flat out lies told by protagonist Mireau, who claims that one man's life is worth more to him than a reputation, yet when presented with the opportunity for political acclaim and honours is all too willing to send troops to battle when freely admitting that four thousand will probably perish in no man's land. A quick glance through history proves such on-screen bald faced lies to be inherently and tragically true off-screen, even in relation to Britain's very own Field Marshall Hague. The French government found the representation of their military too close to fact and banned ‘Paths of Glory', eventually lifting the ban in 1970.

The film does not stand out in mere message alone. For those familiar with Kubrick's later work such as ‘2001: A Space Odyssey' (1968), ‘A Clockwork Orange' (1971) and ‘Full Metal Jacket' (1987) the director's soon-to-be trademarks can easily be spotted. As with many Kubrick films there is a remarkable ability to portray to the viewer what is not seen on the screen. The full carnage of the war is displayed in a darkly amusing, yet chilling scene where one soldier questions another on whether he is scared of death or merely getting hurt. As this precedes the actual battle scenes by a matter of minutes the viewer becomes rapidly acquainted with the carnage, fear and suffering these men faced despite a distinct lack of on-screen bloodshed. One could argue that the short, virtually bloodless battle scene in ‘Paths of Glory' is even more powerful than the bloody, disturbing and prolonged beach scenes from ‘Saving Private Ryan' (1998). Kubrick wonderfully crafts this movie around the composition of the filming rather than relying on any sort of special effects or visual trickery. Throughout the movie, particularly during the battle scenes, the viewer is given a third person perspective of the struggles of men to come to terms with life and death under such harsh conditions. Incredible acting performances from Kirk Douglas, George MacReady and Adolphe Menjou attract the viewer's attention and become the central focus in a war film with scarce amounts of action. Kubrick condemns the politics of war through the use of the politics that control war.

It is very difficult to write about this film and fully do it justice. The pre-Vietnam anti-war sentiment is easily the main focus of the movie and it is through competent acting that the movie is made great. It becomes somewhat irrelevant that the movie is set in WWI as the same message applies to every major war, particularly the following decades Vietnam War. It wasn't until Oliver Stone's ‘Platoon' (1986) that viewers were again treated to an historically based condemnation of war that focused less on heroes and more on the way things really were in battle. Wisely, the movie opens with a narrated epilogue which informs the viewer of the absurdity of WWI and then ends with a melodramatic and almost tear-inspiring scene which, although not in place when compared to the sombre and melancholy feel of the previous eighty minutes, ends the film in such a way that the film itself must be contemplated. ‘Paths of Glory' is easily one of the most powerful films of all time and a pejorative anti-war statement where the only real failing is the short length of the movie and occasional poor performances from the supporting cast. My rating for ‘Paths of Glory' - 7½/10.

Not what it used to be.

[TooShortforThatGesture · 4/10 · 24 December 2004]

I was very disappointed by this film, given the accolades it generally receives.

It's not a terrible film, but it seems to me that it probably gained its reputation by dint of the fact that it had an original and very daring take on the military for its day. Obviously it is a matter of personal taste, but for me, I think it wrong to call a film "great" when its "greatness" is closely tied to the particular period in which it was first released. Some films are very much of their time, and "Paths of Glory" seems to me to be one of them. In this day and age, a movie that basically says "war is hell, and many of the men involved in making war are immoral and commit evil acts for selfish reasons; these men appear particularly awful when compared with those courageous men who behave nobly in the face of war" doesn't have the shock value that it did 50 years ago.

Given the lesser impact of this larger message, it is easier to see the seams and flaws in other aspects of the film. To a great extent, the story seems simplistic. The villains are terribly villainous and the victims are terribly noble. We know from the first 2 or 3 scenes everything we are every going to know about the nature of the primary characters. No one really grows or changes. Instead, the story plays out mechanically. The acting is not bad, but it's a bit old-fashioned and stage-y. Similarly, the technical aspects of the trench and battle scenes, while very good for the time, have a dated quality that undercuts the viewer's involvement in the film. Even for a kangaroo court, the trial scene is silly in the grandest tradition of bad, illogical Hollywood trial scenes. (For example, the defendants are being tried for retreating in defiance of their orders. Yet, when one defendant mentions that he retreated because he was ordered to, no one, not even the noble Colonel trying to defend him, picks up on that fact, i.e. that he was, in fact, OBEYING orders.) In the final scene, a captured German girl is paraded and sexually demeaned on stage in front of a group of rowdy soldiers who seem likely to jump her; instead she's asked to sing a song and the soldiers begin to cry and hum along like the nuns backing up Maria in "The Sound of Music." I recognize that this is a movie and that perhaps it was a more innocent time, but in a movie that purports to show us the nasty reality of war, I found it more silly than affecting for Kubrick to suggest that this scenario would end in choral tears rather than assault.

I'm not taking issue with the themes of this film, which are as relevant today as they ever were. Nor am I saying the movie is worthless today. But I am simply unsure that it deserves an on-going reputation as a GREAT film. Some films are born great and stay great, other become great over time. But some films may be born great and then gently fade away -- like old soldiers.

An Anti-War Masterpiece

[claudio_carvalho · 10/10 · 11 May 2004]

In France, in the First World War, the insane and ambitious general Gen. Paul Mireau (George Macready) orders Colonel Dax (Kirk Douglas) to lead his men in a suicide attack against Germans in the unattainable Ant Hill. After a massacre of the French soldiers, Gen. Mireau orders his artillery to drop bombs between the French front line of attack and the trenches, to avoid the soldier to return to the protection of the trenches. The commander of the French artillery refuses to accomplish the order. Gen. Mireau asks his superior, Gen. George Broulard (Adolphe Menjou), to send three men to Court Martial and execute them for cowardice through shooting, as an example to the other soldiers. Colonel Dax, a former lawyer, defends his men in the unfair trial. Yesterday I watched this outstanding masterpiece for the first time and certainly it is among the best movies of the cinema history. The disgusting story shows the insanity of a war, where men are treated like numbers and not as human beings. The reality of the battles scenes is amazing. The cast has a stunning performance, highlighting the trio George Macready, Adolphe Menjou and Kirk Douglas. The lack of sensibility and respect for the human life and the cynicism in the dialogs of the two generals are fantastic. Two other points that called my attention are the fancy reception for the general staff, while their subalterns are fighting in the front and the misunderstanding of the real intentions of Colonel Dax by Gen. George Broulard. A must-see movie! My vote is ten.

Title (Brazil): `Glória Feita de Sangue' (`Glory Made of Blood')

Glorious Integrity In Every Aspect!!

[TheAnimalMother · 10/10 · 28 January 2010]

Paths Of Glory is a masterpiece without doubt. Usually a masterpiece is the pinnacle of a directors career. However when you are talking about Stanley Kubrick, you are talking about genuine genius. This is just one of his many masterpieces, but Paths Of Glory is probably as good a film as any of Kubrick's other best works. I have seen tons of war films in my life, many great ones. Honestly, this is my favorite of them all. When I first saw this film I didn't expect it to blow me away. After all it is an early Kubrick film, however it blew me away constantly, and completely. This is not only one of the greatest war films ever made, not only one of the greatest black & white films ever made, it is simply one of the greatest films ever made bar none. The film screams integrity, in each and every way. This film is a joy to watch, and in my estimation, Paths Of Glory will remain forever as one of cinemas greatest accomplishments.

10/10

An excellent war film!

[water-wiz · 14 October 2004]

The end sequence is beautifully symbolic.The soldiers in the bar watch as a frightened German girl is brought before them. As the poor lass struggles to sing her song (it really doesn't matter what song), they begin to realize that this hapless creature is enduring what their three executed comrades had endured themselves. Their three comrades were brought before the military tribunal as a formality before their execution. Now these soldiers are the tribunal for this pitiful girl who now stands before them awaiting their judgment. But unlike the cold inhuman justice that the French military machine has dealt to their compatriots, they watch intently as this German girl strives to sing in spite of all their cat calls and hoots and hollers, realizing that she is trying her best in spite of overwhelming opposition, just as they and their three dead friends had tried in attacking the ant hill. They cry because they see themselves up there on the stage.........a poor frightened soul that finds themselves in a situation they'd rather not face but is compelled to do so. Colonel Dax realizes this and allows this brief respite of humanity to engulf the troops before they are sent back to face the horrors of the war. This film is indeed one of the best war films ever made it simply overpowers the viewer with emotion.

A marvelous film about the STUPIDIST war in history with a dynamic performance by Douglas

[planktonrules · 10/10 · 15 November 2006]

This is a wonderful film and for those who are looking to see a Stanley Kubrick film that the average person can relate to, this is a great initiation to the director's work. Some of his films are a bit hard to understand or frankly make my head hurt (2001 is a great example), but this one is much more straight-forward and conventional than most of his other films while still being a great film.

The movie is based on a real incident in WWI. When a squad of French soldiers were ordered "over the top" (i.e., to crawl out of the trenches and charge across the battlefield while being shot down like dogs--the standard way of fighting on the Western Front), the men were so sick of the pointless fighting that they refused. As a result, the officers (who are shown sitting many miles behind the lines sipping sherry and living a life of opulence) order that some soldiers randomly be taken out of the group to be executed as an example to the others! The complete unfairness of the punishment, the futility of the war and the fact that the leaders were a group of soul-less fiends were the focus of this intensely interesting film.

The lead was played by Kirk Douglas. His job was to defend these poor men, but it soon becomes obvious that the trial is a show trial--the men are doomed from the outset. In some films, Douglas' style of acting is not very appropriate, but his bigger than life acting style and the way he ultimately explodes at his superiors is a wonderful addition to the film. He single-handedly acts like the conscience of the nation--something that was clearly lacking. A wonderful and intense performance on his part--perhaps only surpassed by his lead in the film LUST FOR LIFE.

This is a wonderful film about this war--a wonderful film to be seen along with ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT. Any true fan of film should see this movie.

Awesome movie stands as a broody statement against war and man's inhumanity to man

[ma-cortes · 8/10 · 15 August 2010]

Sensational antiwar treatise based on facts with a relentless and vivid denounce against the military commanding class represented by two senior Generals (George Macready , Adolphe Menjou ) who order his men a suicidal mission . France 1916 , an upright officer , Colonel Dax (Kirk Douglas), must lead his soldiers against difficult enemy positions called the 'Ants Hill' . Then he's also the Colonel lawyer assigned to defend three (the privates Timothy Carey , Ralph Meeker , Joe Turkel) of them when the attack is lost against charges of cowardice and submitted to eventual firing squad. Never has the screen thrust so deeply into the guts of war! The most explosive motion picture in 25 years ! Bombshell! The roll of the drums... the click of the rifle-bolts... the last cigarette... and then... the shattering impact of this story... perhaps the most explosive motion picture in 25 years! It explodes in the no-man's land no picture ever dared cross before! Now the screen blasts open the bombshell story of a Colonel who led his regiment into hell and back - while their maddened General waited for them - with a firing squad!

This is a thought-provoking and intelligent war drama perfectly acted by strong cast and masterfully directed. Interesting screenplay based on a Humphrey's Cobb's novel has been well adapted by Stanley Kubrick and Jim Thompson . It depicts a brooding study about futility and insanity of war , making a shattering accusation against the military ruling staff who cares on promotions more than the soldiers . Kirk Douglas is very good as compassionate French Colonel who commands his troops in some spectacular scenes on the trenches . Stunning support cast beautifully performed by notorious secondaries , such as : Emily Meyer as the priest , Wayne Morris as the lieutenant , Richard Anderson as the Major prosecutor , Ralph Meeker , Timothy Carey , Joe Turkel and Suzanne Christian , Kubrick's wife . Special mention for the two selfish and ruthless Generals exceptionally performed by George Macready and Adolph Menjou . Excellent cinematography in black and white by cameramn George Krause , filmed on location in Schleissheim Palace, Munich, and Bavaria Film studios, Geiselgasteig, Grünwald, Bavaria, Germany (studio). The motion picture was wonderfully realized by the maestro Stanley Kubrick and lavishly produced by James B. Harris , his usual producer at the time . This magnificent film along with ¨ All quiet on the Western front ¨ , ¨Westfront 1918 ¨, ¨ Captain Conan ¨ and ¨King and country¨ result to be the best ones about the powerful antiwar theme . Time hasn't dimmed its power , or its poignancy and remains untouchable the critique to the military hypocrisy in an ultra-lucid exposition . Rating : 8.8/10. Phenomenal and marvellous film , above average . Essential and indispensable watching .

One of the all-time best antiwar movies

[psychprofessor · 10/10 · 15 November 2003]

If you can watch this movie all the way through to the final scene in a bar in which a German girl (played by Kubrick's wife!) sings a song and all the grizzled veterans in the room cry--and not cry yourself--then something's wrong with you. This is one heck of a powerful film and makes a better statement against the senselessness of war than many films with vastly bigger budgets. It blew me away the first time I saw it.

One of the greatest anti-war movies eve

[cfnas · 10/10 · 17 December 2003]

This movie, along with the original screen version of "All Quiet on the Western Front" must rank as one of the most tragic versions of what war is really like. The arrogance and total disregard for the welfare of the soldier as beautifully portrayed by Menjou and McReady, in opposition to the care and concern of the Colonel so humanly portrayed by Douglas adds to the reality of what the world was like in the days of the "Great War." Additionally, the roles played by Wayne Morris, Ralph Meeker and the self serving aide to McReady add to the greatness of this memorable motion picture. There is no "Viva La France" here.

A Early Masterpiece by the Genius Filmmaker

[kgprophet · 7/10 · 28 November 2013]

It seems amazing the jump in scope and complexity from Kubrick's previous film "The Killing" and this landmark motion picture. The competency in direction - acting, staging, pacing, editing, and of course the pristine cinematography. It seems it was made by a director with many more years of experience. As many people involved with the project knew, this film would be remembered through time. Based on a real incident, it reflected the change in sentimentality of how soldiers were being used as human waves, where it was acceptable to allow for a certain percent of casualties. This disregard for human life is eloquently displayed with a series of scenes the demonstrate the futility of war. From the miserable trench conditions, to the fighting for mounds of dirt, to the blind military strategy that merely repeats failed attacks, to the absurdity of threatening death as punishment as part of the "rules" of war. Partly what makes this such a timeless statement is the fact it was banned in many countries, because of the possible explosive anti-military sentiments it may have provoked.

Sadly, this film was ignored by the Academy Awards, there are many aspects of the film that are excellently executed. Primarily is the lean script. Clocking in at 88 minutes, each exchange by the great cast is sharp and poignant. The intriguing audacity of executing your own soldiers during a war creates meaningful contradictions. A Colonel wants 3 men shot for cowardice, as a representation of each group. Why not kill all the soldiers if they are all accused of cowardice? And what real incentive does it give the other soldiers to go on to a battlefield and be killed or stay in your trench and be killed? These dilemmas are intelligently staged with a crisp pace that successfully develops sympathy from the audience. Part of what makes the casting great is the use of actors that have distinctive characteristics that present more of the human side of facing death.

I don't think anyone will deny the artistic freedom of using American actors as French soldiers. Or the fact this 1916 period piece has distinctly modern dialect and frank honesty about religion, military power, and what the definition of true patriotism is. Even better is that these subject matters are cleanly addressed with not one moment feeling like a dry debate. Rarely do these confrontations occur sitting down, the body language and use of space creates a dynamic that feels heavily thought out and rehearsed. The locations are exquisite. Ironically, the locations were filmed in a castle in Germany. All the characters in this film are well drawn and a joy to watch when sparring against each other. Kirk Douglas particularly savours his juicy scenes of disdain and rebellion. George McCready is the antagonist, and speaks with a lofty prima donna delivery that makes him all that more detestable.

This film succeeds on all levels, it has great action scenes but has a moral message. It has unpleasant confrontations with death but is still beautiful to look at. The subject matter is serious yet very entertaining. It achieves the classification of a film masterpiece because of the ability of the filmmaker to encapsulate the heart of the story with only a few scenes (the entire film plays out over the course of 2 days) with well honed dialogue and an active camera.

One of the greatest anti-war movies

[SnoopyStyle · 8/10 · 31 March 2015]

It's 1916 France. General Georges Broulard convinces General Mireau to send his men on a suicide mission to attack the fortified Anthill. The men are worn out. General Mireau with glory in his eyes downplays the difficulties to Col. Dax (Kirk Douglas). He even threatens to relieve Dax when he gives less than full enthusiastic support. On a 3-person night patrol, drunken lieutenant Roget kills fellow soldier Lejeune and then falsifies the records despite Corporal Paris (Ralph Meeker). Dax leads the attack the next morning. The first wave is wiped out and the men refuse to continue the attack. Mireau court-marshals a man from each company for cowardice. Roget sends Paris as one of those men. Dax defends them in the kangaroo court.

Stanley Kubrick creates one of the classic anti-war movies of all times. Its indictment was biting at the time and finds its glory by the opposition it faced. Kirk Douglas is at his heroic best. The vision is sharp. The story is poignant. The movie finds its target and doesn't let go.

Much too simple, much too easy

[M-LN · 6/10 · 4 September 2000]

I was rather disappointed by this movie. It is supposed to bring a strong message about the cruelty of war, not only created by the fights but also by the nature of man. The problem is that the good guys are too perfect while the bad guys are too bad. The story is too simple, and I am not sure it has any intellectual value, despite the evident willing to criticize.

Overrated? I fear so.

[buzzerbill · 2/10 · 22 October 2005]

Kubrick is one of the really great film auteurs of the 20th century, and Path of Glory is admired by many as a work of early maturity. Indeed, there is much to admire. The clinically sharp black and while photography; the use of long tracking shots; fine performances, particularly George Macready as an ambitious general and Adolphe Menjou in perhaps his finest work in a career filled with portrayals of reptilian manipulators; crisp editing; effective use of sound. Indeed, it bears many of the hallmarks of Kubrick's more mature (from Dr. Strangelove and Lolita onwards) style. One particularly uncanny stylistic element: the tracking shots and interiors in some ways prefigure Resnais's great Last Year at Marienbad--which in turn seems to be the source of much of Kubrick's style from 2001: A Space Odyssey onward.

And yet this film feels flat. It's arguably the emotionally chilliest of all of Kubrick's films. Its unending succession of military stupidity and venality (even for the French army) is oppressive. It is a classic war-is-hell-and-the-commanders-are-the-ninth-circle polemic--and all its technical polish cannot disguise its formulaic hollowness. It lacks the most distinctive thing characteristic of all of Kulbrick's mature films--sardonic humor. Even the most touching moment in the film--the café scene--is somewhat forced.

Kubrick was obviously fascinated with war, from his very first film, Fear and Desire (which is even flatter and more formulaic then Paths of Glory)to Spartacus to Dr. Strangelove to Full Metal Jacket, with growing maturity and mastery. Of Kubrick's early films, The Killers stands out; but it is not until we reach Dr. Strangelove and Lolita that his full genius is apparent.

For the Kubrick fan, see this film to understand the arc of his career. I can't really recommend it to others.