Paths of Glory (1957)

Rating: 4/10 (2 September 2011)

"Why didn't you attack the anthill single-handed?"
This is the story of... well... I don't know what the story is here. The movie has strange directing, average acting, an intriguing script and low production value.
Director Stanley Kubrick directs this movie in a weird and strange manner. The camera does strange things, the metaphors are predictable, the angles are also predictable, and the battlefield scenes are average. Sometimes even below average. The only scene that really stood out for me was the night recon mission: the atmosphere was very well done, and the landscape could very well be from the Moon.
The acting is average. Kirk Douglas has a subdued role, the three patsies are interesting but completely unrealistic, the french generals are nothing more than caricatures and the rest are there just to make the numbers. There are no enemies, but with friends like that, who needs them?
The script is quite intriguing. It certainly kept me interested, but for the wrong reasons. I couldn't believe where they were going with it and I was anxiously waiting for something to happen, to change, to contradict what I was seeing. The very odd subject caused a huge controversy and the French banned the movie for it, and I can't say I blame them. The way they were portrayed in this movie was simply despicable. The subplots were also predictable and even annoying, at times.
The production values are very low. There are only a few sets and a handful of soldiers. On a positive note, there are a lot of explosions.
Paths of Glory. Artsy and pretentious war movie wannabe. 4/10.