Paths of Glory

You've probably figured out that I'm viewing a lot of classics and auteur films in my quest to see anything that's worthwhile watching. (According to whom? Well, that's another discussion.) It seems that half the time I rent one of these films it lives up to its hype. The other half of the time I'm usually perplexed. I'm getting the feeling that some of the time this can be chalked up to the subject matter, e.g., war films aren't usually my favorite. And sometimes I feel that the film is dated, e.g., 1930s brand of silliness can be very un-funny now. The remainder of this other half I pigeonhole into a category I'm going to call "doesn't have that zsa zsa zsu to it." In the case of this film, I'm placing it in the latter category. I've been known to really like war films (e.g., Patton) and potentially dated films (e.g., It Happened One Night). But if a film doesn't have anything to make me sit up and pay attention then it lands in the last category. This film has a rather pedestrian script -- three soldiers who are accused of being cowards are sentenced to death, and the only one who can save them is their commander, played by Kirk Douglas. The entire film is about the politics of war. It has what is considered an incredible ending, but which missed the boat in my opinion because it yanks the viewer away from musing about bureaucracy and politics into the broader context of "war is bad." Which is completely true, but that's not what the film is about. This is one of Stanley Kubrick's first films and I'm not sure he'd found his sea legs yet. It's better than average, but not anywhere near as masterful as A Clockwork Orange or Eyes Wide Shut. I'm guessing I'll get another round of hate mail about this, so if you'd like to disagree with me, I'd appreciate someone telling me what all the hype is about.

year: 1957
length: 87 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050825/combined