Advertisements

Film Review – The 15:17 to Paris (2018)

Clint Eastwood is making a trend of turning heroic, true events into feature-length films, and The 15:17 to Paris is another example of such a tendency.  But, in a surprise move, Eastwood and Warner Bros. hired the real heroes to act in the film, further blurring the lines between reality and cinema.  The following review will be spoiler free.

The 15:17 to Paris

Synopsis

Directed By: Clint Eastwood

Written By: Dorothy Blyskal

Starring: Spencer Stone, Anthony Sadler, Alex Skarlatos, Jenna Fischer, and Judy Greer

On August 21, 2015, three young men boarded the Thalys train #9364 bound for Paris in the middle of their backpacking trip through Europe.  On board, the men encountered and prevented an attempted terrorist attack by a single assailant, saving countless lives on the train.

Through their earlier years that included some background in the armed forces, we see what prepared these three individuals for this act of heroism, and how ordinary citizens can rise up and do the extraordinary in times of need.

Background

Back in April of 2017, it was announced that Clint Eastwood would direct a screenplay from Dorothy Blyskal based on the book The 15:17 to Paris: The True Story.  While reports initially pointed towards Kyle Gallner, Jeremie Harris, and Alexander Ludwig to star as the three heroes, word later came out that Eastwood had cast Alex Skarlatos, Anthony Sadler, and Spencer Stone to play themselves in the film.  This move certainly put more eyes on The 15:17 to Paris as its release date drew closer (much to the pleasure of Warner Bros. and Village Roadshow).

As for the event itself, the assailant that the trio stopped had over 300 rounds of ammunition on his person.  If not for these men, 500 lives aboard the Thalys train #9364 could have been lost.  For their actions, the men received the Legion of Honour, France’s highest decoration for military and civil merits.

However, the casting stunt caused people to have one thought on their minds: how well can these guys act?

the 15:17 to paris

image via the New York Times

The 15:17 to Paris Includes an Earnest Story About Everyday Heroes

At its core, The 15:17 to Paris is very well-intentioned.  As the film attempts to pay its respects to the these three heroic men, there’s a clear understanding of how courageous these men were during the attack.

While on the train, there’s a very hectic nature to the film that is almost anxiety-inducing, putting the audience right in the middle of the fray.  There’s a strong visceral impact that, if viewed in vacuum (i.e. if you watched the clip of the train attack on YouTube), would be very affecting.  Clint Eastwood knows how to direct gut-wrenching, true events given the rest of his filmography as a director, and he shows his skills in that small timeframe.

For everything surrounding the actual event, well, that’s an entirely different story.

the 15:17 to paris

image via Flickering Myth

Bad Acting Sinks the Movie, and it’s Clint Eastwood’s Fault

Alex Skarlatos, Anthony Sadler, and Spencer Stone are not actors, and The 15:17 to Paris exploits their deficiencies at every turn.  The trio of heroes come off as amateur stage actors, doing their best to just get through each scene while remembering all of their lines.  They’re so focused with the basic elements of acting that they’re very wooden, showing little charisma whatsoever.

However, no one should blame these three for their performances.  Anyone that chastises these men is horribly misguided.  After all, they’ve never acted before — what do you expect from first-time actors in a film with a wide release across the United States?

The main culprit behind this debacle is Clint Eastwood himself.  The legendary film figure is well-known for his hands-off directing approach, moving production along as quickly as possible and filming each scene in as few takes as possible.  He doesn’t give many notes to his actors, either.  When you have an experienced actor like Tom Hanks at your disposal, you can get away with this approach.  But, when the film’s stars are individuals that have never acted before, you’re asking for disaster.

The poor performances even extend to the child actors that play younger versions of the three heroes, showing that Eastwood just didn’t connect with anyone on set.  Some of the child actors have given solid performances in other films, proving that they’re much better than their performances in The 15:17 to Paris would indicate. 

Eastwood set his actors up for failure, and it results in some painfully awkward scenes of dialogue between the cast members.  With poor writing thrown into the mix as well, you can’t help but feel bad for everyone involved.

the 15:17 to paris

image via Hidden Remote

Contains Out-of-Touch Direction and Characterization

The acting is a very noticeable problem with The 15:17 to Paris, even to the untrained eye.  However, it’s the script of the film that sinks the ship.  In a 94-minute film, there is approximately sixty minutes of storytelling.  In an attempt to offer a look into what kind of person each of these individuals were leading up to their acts on the train, The 15:17 to Paris resorts to showing these three strolling through Europe on an excursion with no consequences or additions to the story.  They meet a random American that quickly leaves the picture, eat ice cream, and take selfies.  The film forces Alex Skarlatos, Spencer Stone, and Anthony Sadler to fill in the gaps with banter, but (once again) you can’t expect untrained actors to carry a movie in such a manner.  Before the train sequence ever occurs, you’re already checked out of the film.

The film bizarrely covers the lives of these three individuals in such a brief period of time that you never get a solid understanding of these men.  In that regard, The 15:17 to Paris fails to achieve its main goal as a movie.

the 15:17 to paris

image via The Times

The 15:17 to Paris is one of those movies where it feels like a 50-year-old wrote dialogue for characters in their 20’s, writing with a misguided and stereotypical view of how younger people behave.  Filled with selfies and a pop song that stopped being popular months ago, you get the sense that these men are caricatures of their actual selves.  With such a script, you feel a sense of apathy as these heroes reenact their brave actions — that’s the worst possible emotion to attach to such an inspiring act of bravery.

Final Thoughts

The 15:17 to Paris deserves a lot of praise for its earnest intentions in portraying a heroic event that honors its real-life subjects (and actors) by culminating to the idea that ordinary individuals can rise up and achieve greatness.  However, the story as presented is a mess.  Clint Eastwood does nothing to help his first-time actors as the film exploits their weaknesses as untrained individuals, trapping them in a dialogue-heavy narrative that aimlessly moves from point A to point B with zero life.

The amazing true story of these three men is reduced to a borderline unwatchable backpacking trip — The 15:17 to Paris diminishes the heroic acts of Spencer Stone, Alex Skarlatos, and Anthony Sadler.

Grade: D

the 15:17 to paris

image via digg.com


Thanks for reading!  What are your thoughts on The 15:17 to Paris?  Comment down below!

If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to MovieBabble via email to stay up to date on the latest content.

Join MovieBabble on Patreon so that new content will always be possible.

What movie topic should I discuss next?  Whether it be old or new, the choice is up to you!

Advertisements

Nick Kush

A current young professional, Nick founded MovieBabble in October of 2016 in order to provide insightful film analysis that is meant to educate and entertain. Nick is also a member of the Internet Film Critics Society. You can follow Nick at the official MovieBabble Twitter account @MovieBabble_

13 Responses

  1. This movie was amateurish in many ways. So sad to see that in an Eastwood movie, and this story and these guys didn’t deserve this lazy an effort.

    • Nick Kush says:

      “Amateurish” is definitely the correct word to use for this film. Personally it even diminished the courageous acts of the men involved.

  2. Debra Schnitzer says:

    Just saw. The good thing is it was about an hour and a half. If I was one of the heroes mothers I would have loved it. But; It was so bad. The scenes didn’t flow. It was difficult to sit through. I actually felt embarrassed for the poor men. The scene on the train was bearable because you knew it happened.

    • Nick Kush says:

      You explained it perfectly! It’s incredibly difficult to sit through. You feel so terribly that these heroes are basically on an island with no one there to help them. Cmon Clint Eastwood, you can do better than this!

  3. anne leueen says:

    I am surprised that Eastwood would noy have known that acting is a “profession” and a “craft” that must be learned and practiced. Taking someone in and putting them into a leading role in a film when they have no previous experience or natural talent and no training…… it just does not work. thanks for this review. I shall give this one a miss.

  4. I saw this film and agree with the review. You aren’t wrong. But I loved it on a simplistic basis, being that 3 American boys stepped in and saved lives and they were rightfully honored. It was a bold move to use the ACTUAL men but I wanted better script and better direction from Clint Eastwood. It would have been a B movie with any other director. Jenna Fischer was very much a disappointment her lines were delivered stiffly and without real emotion. Judy Greer came out as the best actress in the film due to the rest.
    This film could have been a LOT better with a little patience. But in itself as a work of art, not comparing it to anyone or anything else, I loved it because the idea was unique and honoring. I left feeling proud of my generation and my country. Clint Eastwood will always inspire patriotism with me. Thanks for your review! Excellent work as always.

    • Nick Kush says:

      I’m glad you found enjoyment in it! There’s definitely something to admire here about attempting such as audacious stunt, but Clint should have known better than to try this considering his directing style.

  5. The LA Times featured an article about this film a few weeks ago, and from the write-up, it sounded promising given the fact the real guys portrayed themselves. It’s too bad it’s a disappointment.

    • Nick Kush says:

      It’s really a shame. I think with a hands-on director this concept could have worked. Eastwood just isn’t a good match for inexperienced talent.

  6. Nick Kush says:

    Want to write for MovieBabble? Check out this link in your browser to get started: https://moviebabblereviews.com/join-moviebabble/

    Be sure to check out the MovieBabble Patreon page: https://www.patreon.com/MovieBabble

Leave a Comment Below!

%d bloggers like this: