MovieChat Forums > Attack (1956) Discussion > Cowards!!! in war movies (Attack)'56 vs ...

Cowards!!! in war movies (Attack)'56 vs (Paths of Glory)'57

posted 18 years ago by gauthierxavier
10 replies | jump to latest

Having already seen Kubrick's Paths Of Glory, I watched yesterday Attack! which I happen to notice at Blockbuster.(never heard of it before).

Although Attack! is much more Hollywood type of movie, I was thrilled all the way through by the pace and the grueling action that never stops in this movie.

Both movies (one year interval) plot are filled with the themes of cowardism and court-martial. What's interesting in the Kubrick movie though is the third part of the movie actually portraits court-martial, with an astoning speech by the Kirk Douglass character.

I once thought that Kubrick (Paths of Glory, Dr. Strangelove, Full Metal Jacket) was perhaps the only director that portraits open anti-militarism in it's movies.

But after seeing ATTACK and ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT I noticed I was wrong.

In conclusion I loved ATTACK very much. The proof is that I wanted to kill this Erskine Cooney myself. He was so hatable. A proof that the movie was great. It's tottaly worth a see!!!

[–] wtl471629 16 years ago

SPOILER WARNING

The ironic thing about Paths of Glory and Attack is that the cowards were actually brave WW2 war veterans. Eddie Albert the coward in Attack actually served in the US Navy and in the bloody battale of Tarawa he was awarded the Bronze star for rescuing 70 wounded marines while under fire. Wayne Morris who was in Paths of Glory was actually an airplane pilot in WW2 and he was a decorated war hero and credited with shooting down 7 Japanese planes and sinking 5 enemy ships. Ironically in Paths of Glory Wayne Morris plays a coward who has innocent brave man executed. Ironic indeed.

[–] yoo 12 years ago

They are actors, and regularly have little or nothing to do with the characters they personate. Would you call it ironic that Anthony Hopkins never ate a single person?

[–] jd-116 10 years ago

How do we know that? :-)

[–] wtl471629 16 years ago

Attack and Paths of Glory were both great movies. Many think they were Anti War but I disagree. I think they were more against injustices, incompetency and cover ups than war itself.

[–] thecultofhorror 15 years ago

Seen both "paths" and "attack" this past month. 2 of the greatest ww2 films ever.

www.myspace.com/deadravensrock

[–] MrBullo 10 years ago

"Yoo" That's a very churlish mean-spirited comment you made about the post preceding yours. I actually found that prior post interesting.

[–] libertarian45 8 years ago

Paths is set in WW1. Will you guys stop referring to it as a WW2 film?

[–] libertarian45 8 years ago

Paths is set in WW1. Will you guys stop referring to it as a WW2 film?

[–] Badlands1 7 years ago

"Paths" was WWI

[–] avalonrock 9 years ago

Both are great movies !! A bunch of my friends and I (all in our late teens)
went to see "Paths of Glory" '57 and we were dumbstruck and fascinated with heated
discussion afterwards over chocolate cokes at the Rendezvous Restaurant, PEI.
Movie was shown in a secondary theatre in town because it was considered a
grade B movie. How wrong -- grade A all the way.
A few years later, on a NY TV station, they showed "Attack" on a loop over and over all weekend. We kept playing poker and memorized the script after while.
We would look at the screen when Cooney was .....SPOILER ALERT