Overrated? I fear so.

Rating: 2/10 (22 October 2005)

Kubrick is one of the really great film auteurs of the 20th century, and Path of Glory is admired by many as a work of early maturity. Indeed, there is much to admire. The clinically sharp black and while photography; the use of long tracking shots; fine performances, particularly George Macready as an ambitious general and Adolphe Menjou in perhaps his finest work in a career filled with portrayals of reptilian manipulators; crisp editing; effective use of sound. Indeed, it bears many of the hallmarks of Kubrick's more mature (from Dr. Strangelove and Lolita onwards) style. One particularly uncanny stylistic element: the tracking shots and interiors in some ways prefigure Resnais's great Last Year at Marienbad--which in turn seems to be the source of much of Kubrick's style from 2001: A Space Odyssey onward.
And yet this film feels flat. It's arguably the emotionally chilliest of all of Kubrick's films. Its unending succession of military stupidity and venality (even for the French army) is oppressive. It is a classic war-is-hell-and-the-commanders-are-the-ninth-circle polemic--and all its technical polish cannot disguise its formulaic hollowness. It lacks the most distinctive thing characteristic of all of Kulbrick's mature films--sardonic humor. Even the most touching moment in the film--the café scene--is somewhat forced.
Kubrick was obviously fascinated with war, from his very first film, Fear and Desire (which is even flatter and more formulaic then Paths of Glory)to Spartacus to Dr. Strangelove to Full Metal Jacket, with growing maturity and mastery. Of Kubrick's early films, The Killers stands out; but it is not until we reach Dr. Strangelove and Lolita that his full genius is apparent.
For the Kubrick fan, see this film to understand the arc of his career. I can't really recommend it to others.