Paths of Glory or Cross of Iron?
Both anti-war movies, enjoyed both of them, great stories and acting, COI feels more real for me, which one made a impact for you?
shareBoth had an impact. From an objective standpoint Paths of Glory is a much better film, much more controlled, tighter, cleaner, and consistently good throughout. I like Peckinpah's films, particularly his westerns, but Kubrick was a cinematic genius, so that's a tough comparison. Cross of Iron has moments of brilliance but also some pretty rough patches.
From a subjective standpoint, for me it depends on the mood I'm in. Cross of Iron tells an emotional story with emotional impact, Paths of Glory is much more cerebral and always leaves me thinking.
Both had an impact. From an objective standpoint Paths of Glory is a much better film, much more controlled, tighter, cleaner, and consistently good throughout. I like Peckinpah's films, particularly his westerns, but Kubrick was a cinematic genius, so that's a tough comparison. Cross of Iron has moments of brilliance but also some pretty rough patches.
From a subjective standpoint, for me it depends on the mood I'm in. Cross of Iron tells an emotional story with emotional impact, Paths of Glory is much more cerebral and always leaves me thinking.
No matter what kind of mood I'm in, Kubrick's films are always more cerebral than Peckinpah's are. I even agree that PATHS OF GLORY is "tighter, [and] cleaner" (but I won't agree to "more controlled") than CROSS OF IRON -- which does not make it the better film of the pair.
Peckinpah was another cinematic genius, whose gifts for constructing and telling stories through characters and conflict (both interpersonal and internal) I subjectively value more than I do Kubrick's talent for screen concept. CROSS OF IRON "tells an emotional story with emotional impact," sparker21, because of Peckinpah's greater and more characteristic dramatic urgency. PATHS OF GLORY, by comparison, demonstrates Kubrick's inclination toward emotional distance.
Although I'm not a fan of war films generally, PATHS OF GLORY is one of (I think) only three which I bought on DVD; and like sparker21, it also "leaves me thinking."
However, my first two viewings of CROSS OF IRON (the second time in Peckinpah's preferred 132-minute version) were so powerful that both times I was left brooding for years afterward.
Most great films deserve a more appreciative audience than they get. share
They are both excellent films, but I think "Paths of Glory" is the better of the two as "Cross Of Iron" has historical inaccuracies which sometimes jar when viewing this (otherwise great) film.
share