I liked both films but I think Full Metal is much stronger. I know both movies depict different aspects of war, but I think FMJ's message is much more powerful. Paths of Glory is all about greed and one's own reputation, while FMJ is all about the stripping of one's own humanity to the point where they become killing machines. Due to that, I personally believe FMJ is much darker and a stronger film. What's everyone else's opinion?
shareThey're so different as films its tough to compare them, but I think the narrative was stronger in Paths of Glory.
For me, Full Metal Jacket had a wider scope and was almost a case study of the war in general, taking in the journey of a particular set of soldiers/journalists along the way. It's an incredible film in its own right and some of the scenes are quite frankly astounding (the opening scene with the 'pep talk', D'Onofrio's character's demise, the war scene in the finale etc), but I think I preferred Paths of Glory's more linear plotline due to its focus and intense conversational scenes.
Both are absolutely stellar films and considering the release dates it just shows how consistent Kubrick was throughout his directorial career.
I really like both! By i choose Full Metal Jacket
sharePaths of Glory.
"We're living in a powder keg and givin' off sparks..."
both
why to choose??
its not like terminator 2 or 1. thats precisely why Kubrick never did the same thing twice! These films hardly comparable, anti-war obvioulsy, but all other is just personal appeal pov.