The 15:17 to Paris (2018)

Who cares if the main characters aren't actors? I don't think this movie is about how much money it will bring in, but the event that took place and the roles these men played in real life. A lot of people are complaining about the childhood history taking up a lot of this movie but it's important to display how these men developed their character, which is what prompted them to act that day. No, it's not an Emmy winner for best actors, but it's a different kind of movie about a different breed of heroes. I enjoyed this movie for what it was-a tribute to superheroes that don't wear capes.

Fmovies: SPOILER: I'm very mixed on Clint Eastwood's filmography especially in recent years. He is responsible for some great work from behind the camera but that hasn't really been the case in recent years. The 15:17 to Paris looked a bit bland and like a run of the mill affair when it comes to recreation of recent global events in film. It didn't help that critics weren't too pleased but of course, I then remembered that I never listen to critics. I'll tell you, the film is flawed and has slow passages but I liked it more than I thought I would.

The film is based on the real life events about a train that had a terror attack foiled on its way from Amsterdam to Paris. The attack was stopped primarily by three men who were best friends growing up. One of them attempts to join the military and the film focuses on his trials to make it in the military, his relationship with his friends, and his quest to find out what his purpose is and how he can truly save some lives.

The first note that needs to be made about the film is that the three lead actors cast in the film are the actual three who acted during the real life incident. With that however, comes a loss in quality of acting in the film. I get that Eastwood wanted to go with an authentic element by having the guys who lived it tell the story, but you could just tell that these weren't actors as they weren't always convincing or delivering lines properly. The film does spend an extended amount of time going into backstory as well which a times was quite noticeable.

Otherwise, I enjoyed it. Some of the cinematography and locations (especially when the cast is on vacation) is gorgeous. The last twenty minutes or so are quite intense and satisfying. The event was something that isn't enough to warrant an entire feature film so I get that we had to go off point. Was the film necessary? No. It is however better than some of the stuff I've seen from Eastwood in recent years so I'll take it.

6.5/10

Extraordinary real life event transformed into a rather embarrassing show of opportunism. Alek Skarlatos, Anthony Sadler, Spencer Stone are likable men, heroes in real life but as actors...didn't Clint Eastwood know, being an actor himself, that to play yourself you need acting talents. As a consequence Alek Skarlatos, Anthony Sadler and Spencer Stone play themselves, unconvincingly. If we start right there, nothing works. A very disheartening attempt at cashing in from an act of real American courage.

The 15:17 to Paris fmovies. Going into this I didn't have high expectations. If you haven't heard, the "stars" of the film aren't actors. They are the guys who actually lived the story. I knew this going into the film, and I was still shocked at how jarring an experience it was to watch regular guys act on the big screen. Don't get me wrong, I certainly couldn't do any better. Not to mention, I haven't done anything in my life anyone should make a movie about.

So why did I see this? Well I have moviepass and had nothing to do on a Saturday at noon. So here we are. Unless you are in a similar situation I would recommend you pass.

Eastwood is never trivial or corny. This could have been an american flag waving hero film (some people see it that way anyway) but in fact it's about a normal guy that has been treated not so well in life by the authorities but at the end has his day and becomes what he always wanted to be: someone that saves lives. It's about life. Not flags. For example, it's interesting when the guys are corrected by the german tourist operator saying that Hitler was under attack by the Russians and NOT the Americans when he killed himself. You can't always be the hero when evil is defeated. I don't see flag waving here.

While it doesn't come close to Clint Eastwood's best films, I still definitely enjoyed this story of life and bravery., but some will find the film too slow and just waiting for the thwarted terrorist attack. We all know the story, 3 Americans stop an attempted terrorist attack aboard a train to Paris, but the film is almost barely about that, its more of story about their lives and what led them to their destiny. I only really sort of didn't like the acting, which I will discuss later, but for the most part I had no issues with this film, which is not over-patriotic flag waving propaganda like many anti-military Liberals will say it is. Its a story about the lives of men as well as when bravery is forced upon average citizens.

First off, about the acting, the Americans didn't do the best job, but that is understandable because these are not actors, but the real men who were there. So its very clear that they are untrained actors, even with the help of veteran actor Clint Eastwood. The story was well put together, chronicling the lives of the heroes in question. Though some of the touching an emotional conversations are bit cheesy, which is surprising coming from Clint Eastwood but it goes by quickly and ws no real issue. But over all I thoroughly enjoyed this film, even with its slight flaws that honestly only bothered me slightly.

I would recommend it.