Is Paths of Glory Worth Watching?
Answer: Yes, Paths of Glory is definitely worth watching if you enjoy War movies.
It features a runtime of 88 minutes and offers a solid storyline that appeals to general audiences. Bottom Line: Highly recommended!

Verdict:Paths of Glory is a confirmed HIT based on our analysis of audience ratings and box office momentum.
With a rating of 8.3/10, it has delivered a compelling experience for fans of the War, Drama genre.
Answer: Yes, Paths of Glory is definitely worth watching if you enjoy War movies.
It features a runtime of 88 minutes and offers a solid storyline that appeals to general audiences. Bottom Line: Highly recommended!
Last updated: January 18, 2026
Released in the dynamic cinematic landscape of 1957, Paths of Glory emerges as a significant entry in the War, Drama domain. The narrative core of the film focuses on a sophisticated exploration of A commanding officer defends three scapegoats on trial for a failed offensive that occurred within the French Army in 1916. Unlike standard genre fare, Paths of Glory attempts to deconstruct traditional tropes, offering a refreshing take on its central themes.
The success of any War is often anchored by its ensemble, and Paths of Glory features a noteworthy lineup led by Kirk Douglas . Supported by the likes of Ralph Meeker and Adolphe Menjou , the performances bring a palpable realism to the scripted words.
Performance Analysis: The lead actors exhibit a remarkable range, navigating the emotional peaks and valleys of their respective characters with a precision that makes every motivation feel earned.
In summary, our editorial assessment of Paths of Glory (1957) is overwhelmingly positive. With an audience rating of 8.3/10, it stands as a mandatory watch for any serious cinema lover.
Quick Plot Summary: Paths of Glory is a War, Drama film that presents a compelling narrative that engages viewers from start to finish. This summary provides a scannable look at the movie's central conflict and narrative structure.
The film presents its narrative with careful attention to pacing and character development. A commanding officer defends three scapegoats on trial for a failed offensive that occurred within the French Army in 1916. The story unfolds naturally, allowing viewers to become invested in the outcome while maintaining engagement throughout.
The film operates on multiple levels, using its genre framework to explore deeper themes about human nature, society, and the choices that define us.
Ending Breakdown: Paths of Glory brings together its narrative threads in a way that feels both earned and emotionally resonant. The finale has been praised for its approach to war resolution.
The emotional climax centers on character transformation, creating a memorable conclusion that audiences have responded to positively.
The final moments of Paths of Glory demonstrate careful narrative planning, resulting in a conclusion that enhances the overall experience.
Paths of Glory uses real-world events as narrative inspiration. As a war, drama film, it navigates the space between factual accuracy and narrative engagement.
The film balances historical fidelity with cinematic storytelling. Core events maintain connection to source material while adapting for theatrical presentation.
The production demonstrates respect for its source material, with attention to period detail and historical context.
Accuracy Assessment: Paths of Glory successfully translates real events into compelling cinema. The film prioritizes thematic resonance over documentary precision.
Highly Recommended For:
| Metric / Region | Collection (Approx) |
|---|---|
| Production Budget | $935.0K |
| Worldwide Gross | $1.2M |
| Trade Verdict | CLEAN HIT |
The estimated production budget for Paths of Glory is $935.0K. This figure covers principal photography, talent acquisitions, and visual effects. When accounting for global marketing and distribution, the break-even point is typically 2x the base production cost.










Amazon Prime Video
Amazon Prime Video with Ads
Apple TV
Amazon Video
Apple TVAnalyzing the audience sentiment, IMDb rating of 8.3/10, and global collection metrics, Paths of Glory stands as a successful venture for the creators. It remains an essential piece of the 1957 cinematic year.
Paths of Glory is considered a hit based on audience response and box office performance. With a rating of 8.3/10, it's highly recommended for fans of War, Drama movies.
Yes, Paths of Glory is definitely worth watching! It's a must-watch hit for fans of War, Drama cinema.
Paths of Glory is currently available for streaming on Amazon Prime Video. You can also check for it on platforms like Amazon Prime Video, Amazon Prime Video with Ads depending on your region.
Madness and Patsies Crash Together In Kubrick's Explosive Thunderbolt. 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
"Col. Dax" (Kirk Dougas) is cajoled by "Gen. Broulard" (Adolphe Menjou) into taking his Great War weary regiment on one last mission in occupied France. Frankly, it's little better than a suicide one, but his operational commander "Gen. Mireau" (George Macready) is determined at all costs that they succeed. Let battle commence! Only the French soldiers quickly realise that they are facing a well armed, immovable, German opponent and are either killed or driven back. Desperate to motivate his men, "Mireau" gives an order that is luckily not acted upon and with the mission deemed a failure and many of the men now in the relative safety of their trenches, the general orders a court martial for cowardice of three of the survivors. "Dax" is appalled but a trial there must be... Are the right people being tried and is the outcome a mere formality? I saw a 16mm print of this rather gripping and depressing wartime drama and it augmented the genuine sense of peril faced by these men as incoming artillery, the claustrophobic trench existences and - make no mistake - the competencies of their officers are put on display for us. It's dark, wet, gritty and as we reach the denouement clearly illustrative of the futility of much of this stage of this war. Kirk Douglas takes top billing and is adequate, it's Macready who actually steals this for me and the director's wife does the briefest of scenes as a German cabaret singer, too. Again, I think cinema will focus this better than television, but either way it's a thought-provoking exposé of war that holds up well 60-odd years later.
**A short and objective film, with a clear and still relevant message, as well as a huge performance by Kirk Douglas.** There are several films about World War I, but it is far from being seen by the public as one of the best. In fact, it seems to me a little forgotten today. It is, however, timely and current in its pacifist message in which the greatest absurdity of war is emphasized in a partially true story, in which a group of three French soldiers is shot by cowardice after joining an inglorious attack to a much stronger and prepared German position. Stanley Kubrick is a director to which no one gets indifferent: either if he loves or hates. He seems to have enjoyed fostering this by choosing hard themes, uncomfortable and debatable movies. This is just one more, and I, who loved some of his movies just as I hated others, decided to put this movie in the middle of the table. It is much more direct and easy to understand than most of his later work, but is nonetheless uncomfortable for the questions raised. For example, the contrasts between the ordinary soldier, mud in a trench and subject to die like an animal, and the generals, kilometers in the rear, in beautiful palaces where there is not a single shot. Intelligently, Kubrick focuses on the obvious injustice of punishment as proof of the inhuman absurdity of war and military leaders. Thus, the movie is simple, direct, short (not even one and a half hours) and abrasive. Black-and-white cinematography is very clear, luminous and works a lot of light and shadow. The edition is effective and the soundtrack almost imperceptible for discretion. The sets and costumes are worthy of a large production. However, there are no action and combat scenes do not focus on the intensity of the fight, but its most human side. It is another perspective of war: those looking for action will not have what they want, but who wants a deeper movie has a full plate here. Kirk Douglas is the protagonist, embodying a colonel who is responsible for carrying out the defense of the military under trial. The efforts he desperately leads to the last instances are notable, but as the sentence was predetermined, the court is a sordid masquerade. Douglas begins to be cordial and contained, an officer at the orders, part of the gear, but gradually changes as his character is confronted with all that brutality, and this is really a meritorious effort for any actor. I don't know his work well yet, but I wouldn't surprise me if this was one of Douglas's best movies. Unfortunately, and without disregard for Adolphe Menjou and Joe Turkel's efforts, the rest of the cast does not accompany him at all.
This analysis is compiled by our editorial experts using multi-source verification and audience sentiment data for maximum accuracy.

