Customer Reviews

62
4.7 out of 5 stars
Your rating(Clear)Rate this item


There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

8 of 8 people found the following review helpful
As you've probably gathered most of the reviews are for the 'DVD' version of Stanley Kubrick’s 1957 Black and White “Paths Of Glory”. And the ‘BLU RAY’ of it is available in the States and other European territories. But which issue do you buy if you live in Blighty?

Unfortunately the uber-desirable USA Criterion release is REGION-A LOCKED - although it doesn't say so on Amazon.
So it WILL NOT PLAY on most UK BLU RAY players unless they're chipped to play 'all' regions (which the vast majority aren't).
Don’t confuse BLU RAY players that have multi-region capability on the 'DVD' front – that won’t help.

Luckily the European (with foreign language all over the rear of the box) is REGION B - so that will play the English language film on UK machines. There are other Euro Double Packs but I’m not sure if they use the cleaned up print Criterion achieved.

Check you’re player’s region coding acceptability if you want the pricier Criterion release (which is said to have a stunning transfer)...
11 commentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
5 of 5 people found the following review helpful
As you've probably gathered most of the reviews are for the 'DVD' version of Stanley Kubrick’s 1957 Black and White “Paths Of Glory”. And the ‘BLU RAY’ of it is available in the States and other European territories. But which issue do you buy if you live in Blighty?

Unfortunately the uber-desirable USA Criterion release is REGION-A LOCKED - although it doesn't say so on Amazon.
So it WILL NOT PLAY on most UK BLU RAY players unless they're chipped to play 'all' regions (which the vast majority aren't).
Don’t confuse BLU RAY players that have multi-region capability on the 'DVD' front – that won’t help.

Luckily the European (with foreign language all over the rear of the box) is REGION B - so that will play the English language film on UK machines. There are other Euro Double Packs but I’m not sure if they use the cleaned up print Criterion achieved.

Check you’re player’s region coding acceptability if you want the pricier Criterion release (which is said to have a stunning transfer)...
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
32 of 35 people found the following review helpful
TOP 100 REVIEWERon 26 September 2005
It has been almost 50 years since this anti-war film appeared, one which was banned in France until 1970. It is based on Humphrey Cobb's novel. Directed by Stanley Kubrick and starring Kirk Douglas who also produced it, the film examines a fictional (but nonetheless wholly believable) situation during World War One when French troops are ordered to achieve an impossible military objective: Climb and secure the "Ant Hill," a heavily-fortified German position. Of course the troops are decimated. Whom to blame? General Broulard (Adolph Menjou) who gave the order? The troops' general, General Mireau (George MacReady), whose career ambitions overcame his doubts about the order? The officer (Colonel Dax) who led the attack? General Broulard gives a second order: Select three of the survivors, charge them with cowardice, give them a perfunctory military trial, and then execute them. Their commanding officer is Colonel Dax (Douglas) who had been an attorney in civilian life. He is ordered to be the defense counsel. After the inevitable verdict, the three representatives are executed by a firing squad.
Kubrick presents all this on film as if it were a documentary of actual events. Appropriately, he filmed it in black-and-white, in part to dramatize the obvious juxtapositions of right and wrong, good and evil, justice and injustice, etc. The battlefield carnage is extensive but not gratuitous. For me, the insensitivity, indeed inhumanity of the two generals -- far removed from combat in luxurious comfort -- is far more upsetting than the assault on the "Ant Hill." The men who followed orders and lost their lives or their limbs may have died in vain but at least died with honor, if not glory. Kubrick leaves absolutely no doubt about the generals who sent them into battle. Colonel Dax understands the need for military discipline. Orders must be followed. He eventually realizes that no matter how logical and eloquent his defense, the three men are doomed as were so many of their comrades were while climbing the "Ant Hill." Dax also realizes Broulard and Mireau will never be held accountable for the order nor for denying any responsibility for its tragic consequences. Dante reserved the worst ring in hell for those who, in a moral crisis, preserved their neutrality. Kubrick ensures that Menju and MacReady portray Broulard and Mireau not as neutral accomplices but as agents of evil: a more dangerous adversary than the one their troops face in battle.
Is conscience among war's victims? That is certainly not true of Dax. He did everything he could to save the three men. He leaves absolutely no doubt in the minds of Generals Broulard and Mireau what he thinks of them, both as officers and as human beings. However, they are his military superiors and the war continues after the executions. I mention all this by way of suggesting a context for my opinion that the final scene in the cafe has a very important purpose: to communicate Kubrick's reassurance to those who see his film that even amidst war's death and mutilation, the very best of human instincts somehow prevail. They cannot be defeated by the "Ant Hill," nor by Broulard and Mireau and their obscene abuse of military justice. In my opinion, that is what Dax realizes in the cafe as he and other soldiers listen to a terrified girl sing. And that is the final "message" which Kubrick seems determined to leave with his audience.
11 commentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
Stanley Kubrick's Paths of Glory is holding up rather well these days, in fact it's as pertinent and relevant as ever.

It's 1916 and the French and German armies are in opposing mud trenches, when the French are ordered to undertake a suicidal assault on a German held hill, many of the soldiers are quick to realise it's an impossible order to see through to its conclusion and retreat, something which brings charges of cowardice from the military hierarchy. Someone must take the fall...

Withdrawn from circulation in France at one time, unreleased in Spain as well, Paths of Glory is a shattering indictment on military hierarchy. On those General types who watch from afar through telescopic sights as men and boys are led like lambs to the slaughter, then off they go to their dinning rooms to gorge on wine and wholesome meat, the stench of rotting flesh as bad on their breaths as it is out there in no man's land. But it's OK for the war effort, while there might even be a promotion for some lucky soul in nice trousers...

A two-parter, the film was adapted from the novel written by Humphrey Cobb. The first half follows the craziness of the attack, the horrors of war brutally realised as Kubrick and cinematographer Georg Krause bring out the worry and simmering anger that jostle for the soldier's souls. The camera is cold and calculating, thus perfect for the material to hand, it leads the viewers - with skillful fluidity - through the bleakness of the trenches and the desolation of no man's land, the former a foreboding place, the latter an atrocity exhibition as bodies get flayed and shattered, while others retreat with limbs or sanity barely intact.

Second part shifts to a legally based procedural as the Generals conspire to make an example of those who retreated. Cowardice and a dereliction of duty apparently means the firing squad must save the integrity of the army. Patsies are lined up, but their Colonel (a superb Kirk Douglas) wants to defend them, there's much sweat, tears and anger, accusations hurled, and mistakes once again proving insurmountable. Which leads to the astonishing finale, heartbreaking whilst inducing fury, and crowned by an elegiac song that brings tears for characters and viewers alike.

A monochrome masterpiece full of technical skills, towering performances and writing to die for, Paths of Glory, candidate for one of the greatest anti-military films ever crafted. 10/10
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
34 of 38 people found the following review helpful
Exciting, enthralling, action-packed and moving, this is one of Kubrick's finest, and a brilliant war film to rankle alongside and even surpass the likes of 'A Bridge Too Far' and 'All Quiet on the Western Front'. The story of an ill-fated French attack on an invulnerable German position during the First World War, where the ordinary soldier is blamed instead of the blundering general may be a cliche by now, but it is so beautifully shot, written and told that it is a timeless classic.

The script and story is excellent, and particularly well delivered by the likes of Douglas, Macready and Meeker, who all fill in excellently. But the star of the show is undoubtably Kubrick, whose direction of the attack with a panning camera following Douglas and his men with shells exploding all around is a just a treat for the eyes. In turn, shots of the trenches, following the general from the front as he marches through the trenches with the military drumbeats in the background as he inspects the weary men, or the close ups of gritty, fearing soldiers are just excellent. If you like Kubrick, or even if you just like great films, then you'll love Paths of Glory.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
7 of 8 people found the following review helpful
on 10 September 2007
Too many war films claim to condemn their subject matter with one hand whilst making pornographic use of battlefield bloodshed with the other. Kubrick's second studio picture, banned in France until 1975, was truly controversial, but not because of the violence.

The plot is simple: General Broulard (Adolphe Menjou) asks General Mireau (George Macready) to command his division to storm the Ant Hill, an unassailable German target across no-man's land. Sniffing promotion, Mireau agrees. And so it is down to Colonel Dax (Kirk Douglas) to undertake the impossible mission. When it fails, Mireau blames Dax's soldiers, and three of them are chosen to be tried for cowardice. The trial turns out to be Dax's second impossible mission.

At under 90 minutes, it's remarkable how many themes are explored. And these are the big ones, too: courage, belief, fear and, most significantly, humanity. Dax is a moral man in a war-torn world where humanity does not exist - and not simply on the battlefield, but in the general's headquarters. All hope seems spent when Broulard confronts Dax in one of the final scenes, and is surprised to find that the colonel's actions truly came from a position of morality. But then some light in the darkness: a German singer (Susanne Christian, who would later become Kubrick's wife) touches the souls of his men; observing the scene reminds Dax that hope does still exist - just not in war.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
17 of 20 people found the following review helpful
on 18 September 2006
Superlative anti-war film on a par with Renoir's "La Grande Illusion" and Milestone's "All Quiet On the Western Front" sees Kirk Douglas(in one of his best performances) as a captain defending three soldiers on charges of cowardice after they are made scapegoats for a suicidal mission that fails.Shattering critique on the insanity of war is incredibly moving especially in that final scene,one of the greatest in cinema history.This was Kubrick at his greatest before he followed David Lean into bloated epics.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
on 10 July 2015
It's interesting to think of "Paths of Glory" in the context of another great Kubrick move, "Dr. Strangelove." Both are "anti-war" movies, but the latter is much more to the point in making a case for modern war, while "Paths of Glory" harks back to earlier, often satirical, treatments of war by writers like Siegfried Sassoon and Erich Maria Remarque. The focus of the critique here is on the difference between the men in the trenches and the general staff giving orders that are absurd, given the reality of the military situation on the ground. Add to that, the fact that the non-combatant senior staff are all too ready to employ patriotic rhetoric to urge fighting men to do what they will never have to do themselves, and the idea of the moral emptiness of those giving the orders becomes clear -- and all the more when we learn, as we do early in this movie, that ambitions for promotion at ranks far beyond those of the fighting men are what drive the upper echelons of officers to demand suicidal efforts from the troops that they command from such a comfortable distance.

Kubrick has a great eye for that distance in "Paths of Glory." The chateau in which the upper echelons are housed seems untouched by war and to have maintained its pre-war elegance. There's even a dress ball late in the movie, which goes off in the context of an impending execution of three men accused of cowardice, and it's clear that the consciences of all of the general staff are quite untroubled by the executions, which have been ordered not because these particular men are guilty of anything but merely as an example -- "pour encourager les autres," as it were. The representatives of the general staff here are Major-General Broulard (Adolphe Menjou) and Brigadier-General Mireau (George Macready), and their conversations make clear the blend of vanity, venality, and short-sightedness that makes them cheerfully send men to their deaths, whether by firing squad or by by giving orders that will prove fatal to the men carrying them out. Between such figures and the men in the trenches is Colonel Dax (Kirk Douglas), very much in the fight when the absurd orders are put into practice, but also trying to mediate between the enlisted men and the generals, with an eye to doing the best for his men.

Standing in clear symbolic opposition to the chateau in the movie are the trenches themselves and the no-man's land into which the men in the trenches are expected to venture. The visual attention paid to both environments makes clear the moral dynamic of the movie, and the camera dwells just long enough on individual scenes to make them hauntingly real. It's a simple opposition, but it's in keeping with simple, humane, moral structure of the movie. As Corporal Paris, one of the men condemned to be executed, Ralph Meeker represents the basic dignity of the ordinary soldier without coming across as impossibly courageous or saintly. It's a moving performance. The scenes of the court-martial and the lead-up to the firing squad are staged very simply but to great visual effect, which I'll leave readers to experience for themselves without further comment.

The basic moral simplicity of the movie's structure generally avoids sentimentality -- and Kirk Douglas's stoical, quite understated performance goes a long way to establishing that. Only at the very end, where a German girl, "washed up by the tides of war," is called on to entertain a roomful of war-weary men who know that the next day might be their last, does the tone perhaps slip . . . but judge for yourself. It's a striking scene, but by that point in the movie, I thought a harder edge was called for. All in all, though, it's a very effective movie -- very well shot in black-and-white, and paced to perfection. It comes in at around 90 minutes, and you don't feel that it needed to be any longer.

"Dr. Strangelove" is a critique of a totally different military situation, one that viewers of both movies would understand as the kind of movie that a modern war required. But both feature and send up patriotic rhetoric, the ideology that undergirds it (much more explicit in "Strangelove"), and the distance from ordinary people's lives of the decision-makers. The chateau has become an underground bunker -- but the point is similar.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
10 of 12 people found the following review helpful
on 15 August 2000
This film is undoubtedely the film which proved to hollywood that Stanley Kubrick was the most promising director of his era. Paths of Glory is a powerhouse of a film delivering both a great story, outstanding acting and fantastic direction. If anyone is unconvinced of this watch the long tracking shots through the trenches. Timothy Carey is one of the most under-rated actors ever. As the bumbling Pvt. Ferol his performance is better than his last two Kubrick films. Kirk Douglas is less convincing as Col. Dax but this is still one of his better performances (his best is in Spartacus). The whole film looks great with great sets and camera shots and this is all down to Kubrick's precision directing. Thanks to the critical response to this film Hollywood began noticing Kubrick as a hot, young director. And how did Kubrick thank Hollywood? By directing, at the time, the most expensive film of all time ($12m) and the one true great epic film of the fifties and sixties. Kubrick then left America for England and never returned. Making his next eight classic films all in England. If you doubt the power of this film it was banned in France for eighteen years after it's initial release.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
on 29 March 2013
'There's no such thing as shell-shock', rails scar-faced, two-star general, George Macreadie before striking the object of his contempt. The film is almost a caricature of wargames, the objective of which is to seize a German outpost, known as 'The Anthill'. The general sees his men as statistics where losses are calculated as percentages; Colonel Dax, however, played by Kirk Douglas, sees his men as human beings, innocent casualties of brainless strategies, masquerading as patriotism. The general is a martinet; his troops are pawns on the chessboard of his insane ambition. The three men, randomly selected to be shot for cowardice, are almost a re-creation of the trio who were crucified on Calvary. Their deaths are essential for safeguarding the reputation and pride of the donkeys who lead them. Kirk Douglas has the invidious role as defence counsel in a rigged court-martial; the hypocrisy, manifested by the generals, Macreadie and Adolph Menjou, is somewhat typical of all those generals who launched their troops on suicide missions during World War 1. But the three doomed men really steal the show shortly before the end of the movie which is a bit of an anti-climax. My one gripe is that I didn't see a single trace of mud in the trenches.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
     
 
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
The Killing + Killer's Kiss [Blu-ray]
The Killing + Killer's Kiss [Blu-ray] by Sterling Hayden (Blu-ray - 2015)
£19.99


Fear and Desire (1953) [Masters of Cinema] (Blu-ray)
Fear and Desire (1953) [Masters of Cinema] (Blu-ray) by Stanley Kubrick (Blu-ray - 2013)
£11.99
 
     

Send us feedback

How can we make Amazon Customer Reviews better for you?
Let us know here.