Stanley Kubrick's Paths of Glory is an early film, but it often feels as accomplished as many of his masterpieces. Less enigmatic, perhaps, but there are still some great moments of direction. I like to think the film hangs on three tentpole tracking shots - one walk and talk (or salute and talk) through the French trenches, one tracking through No Man's Land during a doomed attack, and the last, less impressive but no less important, following a general through a fancy ball. In these three shots, we get the full portrait of the soldier. Trench life, warfare, and as an ironic contrast, the cushy life of the top brass. And that contrast, that DISCONNECT, is very much at the heart of the film, what with a general sending troops on an impossible action, then court-martialing the men when they fail. At the upper levels, it's all politics, and the men are pawns. At the lower levels, officers might as well vengeful gods. At the center of the story is Colonel Dax, played by Kirk Douglas, an officer, yes, but a humanist in the face of the dehumanizing war machine.
Nothing to be learned and very little to enjoy. It was groundbreaking at its time but there are much better alternatives in 2017.
The moral questions are on a level of a children's storybook and the main culprits are one dimensional caricatures. This was the pioneering movie to say "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" Too bad that over 50 years later that's nothing groundbreaking and the message has been delivered with much more brilliance, for example in "The Thin Red line (1998)".
The acting by the prisoners, which was crucial for any emotional connection to the story was jaw-droppingly bad.
The cinematography is nice, the trench scene for example was excellent. But lets be completely honest: the black&white and messed up audio takes a lot away from it, unless you have a nostalgic connection to such things. It can even be charming in some classics, but in action sequences, it's just... aged like milk, like it's message.
This movie took a very simple story with a powerful message, didn't complicate it or draw it out, and the result was a great movie. Great execution -- a 90-minute story told in 90 minutes, without a wasted scene to dilute its point.
Intense movie showing the egotistical political atmosphere of the military and how the lower class, non-officers suffer for it. This climate has not changed and still exists. If anything, it's gotten more intense and competitive. Kirk Douglas, as always, does a marvelous job.
Seems to have been taken more seriously than it needs to be. Thought it was a clever, irony-soaked satire that ultimately revealed a power to move, and I disagree with people that call for an extra hour. It's a slim, focused, very well acted, bitterly amusing picture -- a minor gem but not the magnificent work that some seem to think of it as.
I didn't like it!! .... Joking!! .. I agree with frankqb: One of Kubrick's more accessible films, the perspective always cared with such accuracy. Fenomenal acting of Kirk Douglas . And the feeling transmitted with success, you ended up with such madness for the lack of justice.
Add your comment
Comments 1 - 15 of 37
Siskoid
Stanley Kubrick's Paths of Glory is an early film, but it often feels as accomplished as many of his masterpieces. Less enigmatic, perhaps, but there are still some great moments of direction. I like to think the film hangs on three tentpole tracking shots - one walk and talk (or salute and talk) through the French trenches, one tracking through No Man's Land during a doomed attack, and the last, less impressive but no less important, following a general through a fancy ball. In these three shots, we get the full portrait of the soldier. Trench life, warfare, and as an ironic contrast, the cushy life of the top brass. And that contrast, that DISCONNECT, is very much at the heart of the film, what with a general sending troops on an impossible action, then court-martialing the men when they fail. At the upper levels, it's all politics, and the men are pawns. At the lower levels, officers might as well vengeful gods. At the center of the story is Colonel Dax, played by Kirk Douglas, an officer, yes, but a humanist in the face of the dehumanizing war machine.Advent
I apologize 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!QQsniff
Nothing to be learned and very little to enjoy. It was groundbreaking at its time but there are much better alternatives in 2017.The moral questions are on a level of a children's storybook and the main culprits are one dimensional caricatures. This was the pioneering movie to say "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" Too bad that over 50 years later that's nothing groundbreaking and the message has been delivered with much more brilliance, for example in "The Thin Red line (1998)".
The acting by the prisoners, which was crucial for any emotional connection to the story was jaw-droppingly bad.
The cinematography is nice, the trench scene for example was excellent. But lets be completely honest: the black&white and messed up audio takes a lot away from it, unless you have a nostalgic connection to such things. It can even be charming in some classics, but in action sequences, it's just... aged like milk, like it's message.
KaramAkerfeldt
100/10 would watch again so hard.KaramAkerfeldt
Oh wow.Clintmwells
A nearly flawless film.Paulorsadv
Comedy? WTF.Rosenrotta
One of the best anti-war films is now on the Imdb comedy list? What the actual F?Unfortunate Synopsis
This movie took a very simple story with a powerful message, didn't complicate it or draw it out, and the result was a great movie. Great execution -- a 90-minute story told in 90 minutes, without a wasted scene to dilute its point.nishithrs
Perfect length, its focused and uplifting.ClassicLady
Intense movie showing the egotistical political atmosphere of the military and how the lower class, non-officers suffer for it. This climate has not changed and still exists. If anything, it's gotten more intense and competitive. Kirk Douglas, as always, does a marvelous job.evildeadthing
Seems to have been taken more seriously than it needs to be. Thought it was a clever, irony-soaked satire that ultimately revealed a power to move, and I disagree with people that call for an extra hour. It's a slim, focused, very well acted, bitterly amusing picture -- a minor gem but not the magnificent work that some seem to think of it as.Ralf
Powerful and sublime!Zmoffy
Really liked it, which is surprising for me. Wish it was a bit longer though.juanittomx
I didn't like it!! .... Joking!! .. I agree with frankqb: One of Kubrick's more accessible films, the perspective always cared with such accuracy. Fenomenal acting of Kirk Douglas . And the feeling transmitted with success, you ended up with such madness for the lack of justice.Showing items 1 – 15 of 37