It's a cool idea to cast the real life heroes. It's a bad idea if you want to make a good movie. They obviously aren't trained actors so this movie being bad isn't all their fault. The script is terrible. The part in the middle school infuriated me, it made no sense why the teachers were that big of assholes. And Spencer just had a shotgun in his closet? Then going to the training part was ok but then the European trip part was pointless. Just watching them go around Europe wasn't entertaining. Clint Eastwood dropped the ball on this one and was trying to manipulate you into feeling something by using the real heroes.
This film was a head scratcher for me. It was a novel concept - to tell a story of heroism casting the heroes to play themselves - but it just didn't work. Not that the heroes didn't bring good first time performances, their contributions were natural and convincing. But the story wasn't big enough to justify a full length feature treatment. So, what we got was: Part 1 - a looooooong first hour to establish basic character points (during this hour I repeatedly asked the questions, "Is this a Clint Eastwood production? Have I mistakenly gone into a low budget, single concept, student film?); Part 2 - A travelogue of Europe to establish the context (that erased the notion that it was low budget, those were lofty locations); then, Part 3 - the act of heroism, itself, worth telling, but it only takes a few harrowing minutes. So, not a documentary, not a movie. Perhaps, a short live action would have worked. Because, the kernel of this film is a story deserving to be told, I give it a 6 (fair) out of 10. But as a feature length movie I would give it a 4 (poor) out of 10. [Reenactment of a true act of heroism]
This be bad.
'The 15:17 to Paris' portrays an event from 2015. The decision by director Clint Eastwood to cast the real life people as themselves was, in my opinion, a poor call. I obviously have nothing against the guys, quite the opposite of course, but they simply cannot act. It's kinda painful watching them, I gotta be honest.
I will say I didn't actually know that was the case before viewing, but I cottoned on fairly quickly whilst watching - especially as Eastwood did similar casting for 'Jersey Boys' four years prior. In terms of actual acting talent, Jenna Fischer and Judy Greer feature minorly.
It isn't just the cast issues, though. The way the plot is set up didn't interest me, the scenes actually onboard the train are solid but that practically only makes up a quarter of the 94 minute run time - the rest is filler, as we see the main trio's lives up until the main event. That would've been fine if the acting was better, but that evidently wasn't the case.
Respect to all involved, but as a film this falls very short.
Not sure if that was the best move of Spencer, if that gun would not have jammed up, he would have been shot and very likely died. :thinking:
As per usual, I enjoyed a movie that everybody else hated.
Clint Eastwood's
A Series Of Pointless Events
I was going to write more, but my dad summed it up pretty good with that title. One of the worst films I've seen a long time. This is Tommy Wiseau's The Room levels of bad, not exaggerating. Scenes that are so short with no purpose are all over this movie. Some scenes even mirror ones from The Room, like when they go into an ice cream shop and for four minutes, talk about random junk that have no effect on the story. There's an entire section of this movie where these jackasses just tour Rome and take selfies all over the place. Nothing matters, all the dialogue is horrible, the acting is some of the worst I have ever laid eyes on, there's baffling editing choices, inconsistencies in the editing, bland music, and POINTLESS every-day affairs.
This movie has inspired me to take a notebook with me to movies now, so I can write shit down as I watch. I'm just now remembering stuff. There's a little moment with one of the friends as a kid, he's in his room, and on the wall, is a poster for Letters of Iwo Jima, one of Clint Eastwood's movies. Reminded me of that bit in Transformers 2 with Sam in his dorm room, and there's a Bad Boys 2 poster on the wall. But beside the nitpicks, the movie fails at it's emotional structure. The real heroes suck as actors, so it's hard to take their monotone mumbling performances seriously, and a large portion of the movie just focuses on random seemingly unimportant pieces of their life. We get no look at who the terrorist is or where he comes from. I felt no threat or tension in the final scene because the terrorist just came off as an incompetent shooter, just baffling. Even in Pearl Harbor, Michael Bay chose to include scenes with the Japanese army to hype up their power-level and what they could do to an American fleet. Here, there is not a single scene with any explanation or story for the terrorist, reducing my engagement. I'm not intimidated by him, so why should I care?
Typically, I disagree with the complaint that these army movies are nothing more than propaganda commercials for recruitment, but good Christ, this movie is the dictionary definition on throwing subtlety out the window. Spencer, or whatever the hell his name is, wants to join the Air Force. Okay, cool. Does that part of the story have any effect on the train attack at the end? No? What's the point of it? There is none? It's just to promote the Air Forces and the Marines? There's really no point to it? Thanks for wasting my time. Story comes first, plot structure comes first, tension comes first, characters come above-all, and this terrorism-level disaster of a "feature film" did nothing for me at all. It's also just a shame this isn't bad enough in a funny way to be like The Room. It borders into the category so many times, but keeps slipping into the just-bad territory. How did this happen, Eastwood?
I enjoyed it a lot more than what I was expecting but it's still not a good movie. There is one huge advantage to have the real people and that was for the end. Not sure if it was worth it to sacrifice the whole movie just for that very last part. Maybe we should have 2 versions. Maybe we should have this and another movie made by real actors and directed by Paul Greengrass.
Acting is a real thing. It's a real profession. It's no joke. You don't give a job to someone who doesn't know how to do it. This movie just shows how bad acting could be disastrous and how it's a real thing. All the sitcom actors in this play like they deserve an Oscar compared to the non-actors.
I also give fault to Clint Eastwood. I have no longer faith in his new movies. His approach is "Less Is More" but in a bad way. In a flat doll way. No dramatization no development, no nothing. Imagine this, you are supposed to endure the first hour of the movie to get to the "exciting" part. That act ended so fast and so under dramatized that the first hour was more exciting.
I went to see this movie because it was Clint Eastwood. I started reading reviews of it today and thought "Is this same movie I saw or are people who write reviews so jaded they can't be entertained?" The movie I saw was a great human story told in a way that made me feel like I was in the room. The cinematography and shot locations are so real and our hero's blend in so seamlessly that I felt like I was on the trip with them. The last time I've been that immersed in a film was the original Star Wars in '79. Simply put the film is Genius.
As close to real life as it gets.
Real people don't have acting coaches, real life isn't one dilemma right after another, and real fights don't have choreographers. I am so glad I didn't look at the ratings on this film (as I usually do) before going to see it. I haven't read the reviews and probably won't, as I think they might make me mad. If you want to see invisible heroes with superpowers, go see an Avengers film. This is about real people and their real reactions. Does "Real" mean "imperfect"? Absolutely. What I loved most about this film is that it doesn't get into the motives or life of the terrorist. Who cares what his motives were? His actions are what mattered. The message I got from this film was this: When the time comes, will you have courage to make a difference, or will you hunker down and hope someone else does it for you?
Go see this with an open mind.
I'm right now an over 1 hour into it. Stopped watching to comment:
If you want to see the real action (I scrubbed through the timeline), try starting:
about 01hr 06mins (when they're coming into the train)
until maybe 01hr 22mins (when they're out of the train and ambulances etc are around...)
You're welcome.
Good cast, but a LOOOT of unnecessary fluff. (I'm in that disco scene where they're just discoing that I assume doesn't add anything to the real point of the story, which is The 15:17 to Paris.)
Movie was really good. Heroes showed patriotism and solidarity despite being on a different country. #Netflix #COVID19 @1517toparis
The entire movie was a waste of time...
The actual "terrorist" part only lasts about 45 seconds and was at the end of the movie
10/10 would never watch again
Might even sue for pain and suffering
A terrible film (if it can be called that) by Clint Eastwood, The 15:17 to Paris tells the real life story of a thwarted 2015 terrorist attack. More of a re-enactment than a film, it follows the lives of three best friends (played by the actual people) leading up to a European vacation in which they encounter an Islamic terrorist intent on carrying out a mass shooting aboard a train to Paris. The storytelling is really piss-poor; there’s no real plot, just random episodes of three guy’s lives, and it’s pretty clear that they don’t have much acting talent. The 15:17 to Paris is a poorly made film that fails to find a compelling story behind this extraordinary event of heroism and bravery.
I wanted to like the movie. I really did. It was just not good. The acting and script were awful even for the trained actors and not taking in the acting history of the heroes playing themselves. I definitely would not recommend this movie to anyone.
I thought 15:17 was an ok film, nothing more, nothing less. It was never going to be a blockbuster but it was imprtant the story was told. The guys who helped on the train were and are heroes, an incredible act of bravery that most would cower from. That said, the film really didn't have that much of a story, no tension or great acting - an ok tv film.
It's easy to see why this film was heavily criticised. Casting the real life heroes as themselves was a risk, and their acting isn't on a par with established performers. The preamble before the incident on the train was long and not always interesting. But perhaps the critics looked at the film in the wrong way. I think there was a deeper resonance because we saw the actual people who averted tragedy, and while their acting wasn't great, knowing that it was them, and not some Hollywood stand-in that actually did save the day, brings a greater emotional connection to the story. It is an imperfect film to be sure, but it's an interesting approach from Eastwood, and it's not the failure many people have taken it for.
It's earnest, well meaning and sincere, but it's totally unnecessary. The incident itself, while scary for those involved, is not noteworthy enough to make for an engaging cinematic experience. Most people are not getting past the stunt casting of the actual people involved, and yes they are not the best of actors, but they try their best, and do okay. What makes their performances stand out soo bad is the contrast of them surrounded by actual actors. The whole thing was just a bad idea.
Guns, religion, and subpar acting. All the hallmarks of an ABC after school special! However, these do not make a good movie.
Mom: "God spoke to me and told me something exciting is going to happen to you. I can't wait to see what he has in store!"
I saw what he had in store. And it sucked.
And did the people really freak out when they saw Anthony but when they saw Alek they assumed he was there to help them? WTF!
An inspiring movie! Although the acting and scripts weren't the best, they were performed by the real people so it sounded natural. It was an interesting idea.
This movie was terrific!
Loved how they showed a bit of each guys upbringing with things they experienced in their childhood, and how they still connected while grown up. I didn't realise that the 3 actors in the movie, were indeed the heroes in real life that lived to tell this story. That just made it hit more home than anything.
I'm not looking for stellar performances in a movie, but these guys did a great job reliving and retelling the horror from that day, that could have potentially ended in a big tragedy had they not put a stop to the terrorist.
I always say "don't trust reviews or scores - watch it and form your own opinion." Well, I did and here it is.
As a huge Eastwood fan I pretty much watch all his stuff. Why call it The 15:17 to Paris? You are seldom on the train with the story. Maybe ten minutes or so. They enter the train about 67 minutes into the movie. For that short of a movie Eastwood is spending a lot of time with prologue. Since the whole thing only lasted a couple of minutes they needed to fill it with something. But the writers did a lousy job doing that. It's listless and uninspired like something done in a hurry in between things. The actors are not the problem, they actually did quite all right for first timers.
I've sleepwalked through the movie, barely paying attention. Maybe not every story is a good movie, I don't know. I don't want to downplay what they did, they showed a lot of heart and bravery in risking their lives for others without hesitation. Which makes this more tragic, they deserve better than this. A documentary might have been the better way to go.
Shout by Saint PaulyBlockedParent2018-02-11T13:47:33Z
Like a bad sermon, The 15:17 to Paris is boring, pointless and irredeemable. The actions of the three Americans who sextuple handedly thwarted a terrorist attack in a train between Amsterdam and Paris deserve more than this slapdash travelogue carelessly thrown together by Clint Eastwood. Clint (who once called me a 'pussy'*) dishonours these men's bravery with a surprising and uncharacteristically amateurish production. The best way to pay tribute to these extraordinary heroes is not this film.
*In an August 4, 2016 interview with Esquire magazine, Eastwood stated, "(S)ecretly everybody’s getting tired of political correctness, kissing up. That’s the kiss-ass generation we’re in right now. We’re really in a pussy generation. Everybody’s walking on eggshells. We see people accusing people of being racist and all kinds of stuff. When I grew up, those things weren’t called racist."