Cathardincu Surprisingly incoherent and boring

Stoutor It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Roxie The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

HotToastyRag If you liked All Quiet on the Western Front, you'll love Paths of Glory. Told in the same anti-war tone, Stanley Kubrick's film conveys a stark, bleak atmosphere in his black-and-white footage, Georg Krause's stoic cinematography, and Malcom Arnold's minimalistic score. It follows the planning and potential execution of a suicide mission in World War One. If you can use your suspension of disbelief and accept the fact that no one in the movie has a French accent, you'll be in for a very riveting, well-acted film.Adolphe Menjou and George Macready are big-wigs in the French army, and they plan out a mission for their boys in the trenches that has virtually no likelihood of success. Both men are hard-hearted and treat men in uniform like chess pawns. Emotional and physical wounds are often ignored, but when Kirk Douglas hears of the plan, he doesn't want to go through with it. He actually cares about his soldiers and doesn't want to order them to their death. Keep in mind that this is a war drama, so don't pop this in if you're in the mood for a light afternoon flick. This movie will absolutely get you riled up, and if you're already anti-war, it might become one of your favorites. It had the misfortune to be released the same year as The Bridge on the River Kwai, which swept the Oscars in 1958 and took space in audiences' memories in the years to come. You've probably heard of Paths of Glory, but unless you're a film buff or student, you might not have seen it. If you're up for a very heavy, depressing movie, it's absolutely worth watching.

James Hitchcock In 1916 a French regiment is ordered to attack "the Anthill", a strongly fortified German position. The attack proves a disastrous failure; the French suffer heavy casualties and none of their soldiers succeed in reaching the German trenches. When a second wave of troops refuse to attack, their commanding officer General Mireau desperately orders his artillery to open fire on them to force them onto the battlefield. The artillery commander, however, refuses to do so without a written order. To try and deflect blame from himself for the failure of the offensive, Mireau orders three soldiers from the regiment, chosen at random, to be tried for cowardice. The task of defending the accused falls to Mireau's subordinate Colonel Dax, a lawyer in civilian life.The film was controversial when it was first released in 1957; it was banned in France, where it was regarded as a slur on the honour of the French Army, until 1975. It was also banned for a time in Switzerland and Franco's Spain and (remarkably) in West Germany. Films with a strongly anti-war theme were perhaps unusual in the fifties, a period during which American (and British) war films were mostly set in World War II and were generally patriotic in tone, with war shown as something heroic. World War I, which could not so easily be turned into a glorious fight for freedom, was largely ignored."Paths of Glory", however, was based on a novel by Humphrey Cobb which had been written in the very different political climate of 1935, when following the slaughter of 1914-18 pacifism was more in fashion. At first sight, Cobb's title looks deliberately ironic because he depicts war as something far from glorious. To those who recognise its source, however, it appears not so much ironic as grimly appropriate. It comes from Thomas Gray's poem "Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard", and what Gray wrote was "The paths of glory lead but to the grave".The film makes its case against war in two ways. The first is by emphasising the futility of war. The only German we see is a female civilian captured by the French; no German soldiers appear at all. I think that this was a deliberate decision by director Stanley Kubrick; the French soldiers seem to be fighting not against men like themselves but against some nameless, invisible and inexorable force of nature, able to cut them down at will. They appear to have no more chance of capturing the Anthill than they would of capturing the moon.The second way in which Kubrick makes his case is by emphasising the gulf between the generals and the man under their command. This is not just a difference in social class- indeed, this element is not emphasised as much as it is in some British productions about the war. It is more a gulf in the way in which they experience the war. The general staff, safe in their chateaux away from the lines, have no real idea of the hardships and dangers confronting those under their command.Moreover, the generals do not even seem to be motivated by patriotism or a belief in the rightness of their cause. They are much more concerned about self-advancement and their own brand of office politics. When Mireau is first ordered to take the Anthill he demurs, believing that the objective can only be attained, if at all, at an unacceptable cost in French lives. It is only when his superior, General Broulard, intimates that a successful attack might be rewarded with a promotion that he changes his mind. When Dax complains about Mireau's behaviour, Broulard assumes that this is all part of a ploy to obtain Mireau's job; it never occurs to him that Dax might be sincere about trying to save the lives of three unjustly accused men.This was not the first film to be directed by Kubrick, but it was perhaps the first to bring him to public notice. The battle scenes are well done, even if they lack the realism of more modern war films such as "Saving Private Ryan" or the recent "Dunkirk". The trial scenes, during which it becomes increasingly uncertain as to whether Dax, for all his forensic skills, will be able to save the three accused. Kirk Douglas is excellent as Dax, a sane and humane man in an insane and inhumane world, and he receives good support from the rest of the cast. Particularly good is George Macready as General Mireau, a man driven literally mad by unbridled ambition to the point where he is prepared to sacrifice hundreds of lives, not for the honour and glory of France but for the honour and glory of General Mireau.The film is perhaps less well-known today than some of Kubrick's later efforts, but I would regard it as his first masterpiece, equal or superior in quality to virtually anything in his later work, including his two later anti-war films, "Dr Strangelove" and "Full Metal Jacket". Douglas was also to collaborate with Kubrick in his second great masterpiece, "Spartacus". 9/10

Miguel Neto Paths of Glory is one of the most realistic war films already made ​​, and also we see a Stanley Kubrick still very new , more already see some of their characteristic , it sends fine , the way he films is very good, who knew the director of Paths of Glory would do in the future classics as Clockkwork Orange, Spartacus or the Shining , totally different film Paths of Glory , this proves the versatility Kubrick , the cast is good, we have Kirk Douglas in the leading role ( Kubrick and Douglas again the work three years later in Spartacus ) , Douglas makes a great acting, the cast also has Ralph Meeker , Adolphe Menjou , George McCready , Richard Anderson , Timothy Carey, Bert Freed , etc., Ralph Meeker , Adolphe Menjou and George McCready make great performances mainly Ralph Meeker , the picture is very good, and the end left me with knot in the stomach, Paths of Glory is the first major classic Stanley Kubrick , and shows why Kirk Douglas is one of the best actors of the decade of 50 and 60. note 9.8

Van Howell Easily the most important movie I've seen in terms of its emotional and intellectual impact. I was nine when it showed at the Main Street theater (25¢ for Saturday matinée), and never forgot it. The idea that army officers would be dishonest, corrupt, and willing to have their own troops executed for no crime was absolutely at odds with everything I was supposed to believe about how the world works—growing up in a military town, in a family proud of its war stories. When I finally saw it again almost sixty years later every scene resonated as if I'd seen it just a week before. The movie was exactly as great as it was the first time around—and for exactly the same reasons. It pulls no punches. Recommended without reservation.