Benutzerrezensionen

I have to confess I didn't research this film to any great extent before I sat down to watch it. However, the two things I did know - mainly courtesy of all marketing - was that it was based on the true story of three men who foil a terrorist attack on a train and that it was directed by Clint Eastwood. Both seemed like equally good reasons to watch the film. And - technically - both of those statements are correct. However, I guess because the promotional material seemed to focus so much on the 'terrorist attack' that I expected something more like 'Under Siege 2' or 'The Commuter' than what I got.

The film starts off with the three Americans as young boys and shows us how they meet. First of all I wasn't that impressed with the acting ability of the boys and was quite pleased when this segment ended. Then we get our first glimpse of what's to come, i.e. something bad happening on a busy commuter train in Europe. And then we're back to the boys again. Only now they're young men and we see what they're doing once they've left education. Only we mainly just focus on one of the three. The other two seem to get relegated into secondary characters. Cue another flash-forward to the terrifying events on the train and we get back to the men travelling round Europe. Then the bit on the train happens. Then the film ends.

Now, you may think I'm being quite cynical and scathing towards the film, but I did actually enjoy it. I just thought it was going to be something it wasn't. Once the child-actors are out of the way the adults take over and they're all decent enough heroes who you find yourself able to root for. Clint Eastwood's direction is nothing special, but it's functional approach works well with the subject matter, i.e. overly-stylish camerawork and effects would seem well over the top and out of place in this film.

It's not a bad film, but I think any audience needs to know that what they're sitting down for is some sort of drama about regular guys (who then happen to get caught up in a terrorist attack). If you go in expecting 'Die Hard on a train' then you're going to leave thoroughly disappointed. It's a slow, character-driven piece that is deliberately underwhelming in order to show how real life terrorist attacks differ to the Hollywood representation. If you're in the mood for something slow, serious and with meaning then you should enjoy this.

Why Eastwood would direct a screenplay from a Production Assistant/Secretary is baffling. He should've at least looked it over and made changes, or even team her up with a seasoned screenwriter. But what he gave us here, is a flop, and an embarrassment to his filmmaking career.

Even at a mere 94 mins long, the slow pacing and overstuffed filler made this feel like a dragged out 3 hour film. Many critics didn't like the timeline jumps, and/or the unrelated backstory of them as youngsters, but I didn't mind any of that at all. What failed those elements is the lack of cohesiveness of the subplots, and the horrible dialogue and constant cheesy useless scenes (e.g. Selfie stick pics). The only decent part was the 15 min action scene, but the rest was a flaccid dragged out bore. Even though the three actual non-actor heroes were cast, they didn't do too bad and were somewhat convincing, but feel they would've been much better with proper writing and directing.

It's still a worth watch, even to see the heroes reenacting their real life drama, but it's a one time watch when you have nothing else better to watch. It's a generous 6/10 from me.

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.

My wife and I watched this at home on DVD from our public library.

This movie is criminally underrated. Seems that many viewers just wanted to see action on the train. While that is the climax it takes all of 15 minutes to show that and it is gripping. That alone would not have made a worthwhile movie.

But Eastwood made a movie about the three men and their lives leading up to that point. They were friends in grade school, they were good kids but got into typical schoolboy mischief. As young adults they each went their own ways but stayed in touch. One of them received training in the Air Force that came in very handy. In 2015 they agreed to meet in Europe to do some sightseeing, gradually working their way towards France. They took the 15:17 to Paris.

The three men Alek, Anthony, and Spencer from Sacramento, play themselves. It didn't start out that way, many actors auditioned for the parts, but in the end Eastwood felt it would be most authentic to use them. And I think it worked out great. Sure they are not professional actors but they were there, they know exactly how everything went down, they are of course authentic, and each does a fine job.

When the terrorist, armed with several hundred rounds of ammunition, began his attack the men didn't hesitate. They did what should be done more often in situations like this, charge the shooter and subdue him. For their bravery and effectiveness they received the highest honors from France.

Good movie, and the 12-minute "making of" on the DVD is interesting.

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.

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.

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.

I have the greatest admiration for Clint Eastwood, both as an actor and director. In the directorial role he never fails to astound me with the breadth of topics and genres he is prepared to operate within. Even his failures such as Absolute Power and Jersey Boys still have degrees of interest. But with The 15:17 to Paris, he's clearly hit the wall.

This is essentially a 90 minute re - enactment of events leading up to, during and after, 3 American tourists (thankfully) thwarted a terrorist attack on a Paris bound train from Amsterdam in 2015. In bringing first time screenwriter Dorothy Blyskal's script, to the screen, Eastwood has decided to have the 3 real - life gentleman play themselves in the film adaption. It's a brave move with arguably only qualified success.

For all those history police, that continually charge historical cinematic dramas such as this, with not being factual enough, this time they should have little to complain about. I'm sure with the real life heroes aboard, the project rarely strays from the known facts of the incident, where certainly people's lives were on the line.

The trouble here is there is clearly not enough content to make a stand alone feature. We are thus delivered quite boring, pedestrian stories of the men as children, teenagers and later as adults with military backgrounds. This is not to forget all the "great" travel log footage of the guys wandering through various European cities and shock, horror, going to discoes and meeting the odd girl, prior to the fateful journey on said train. I found it tedious and dull and the movie itself, despite its relatively short length, extremely padded out.

The 15:17 to Paris is a well - intentioned tribute to 3 real life heroes, but it would have been better dealt with in something like a 60 Minutes segment, rather than an expanded feature film. Hard to believe that this is a movie from the same director who gave us (in the same biographical vein) the terrific, American Sniper.

I really don't understand the dislike for this movie. I enjoyed the back story, superimposed over the beginning of the conflict on the train. Eastwood shows us how these boys lifestyles contributed to putting them in the perfect frame of mind and experiences to thwart this particular attempt at terror. I've seen people commenting on their acting abilities but honestly, I thought they did better than some people who actually call themselves actors. Eastwood and these three men did a great job with an amazing story and I was very glad I took the chance on it

I don't understand why people gave this such bad reviews, it was a good movie. I think k it's great that Clint Eastwood used the real guys to play themselves. They did a great job. I read reviews of people who didn't understand why they showed them as kids, it was to show why they were together. The difference between this and fiction is that the attack and take down of the terrorist is only a fee short minutes. If this was a fiction we would have seen why the terrorist attacked the people o the train, but this isn't about him. What those guys did was courageous, and I'm glad they were able to stop the attack, otherwise everyone would have died.

As a big Clint Eastwood as director fan, this is the first time I am thoroughly disappointed. The main event is gripping, but that does not warrant the poorly-acted, boys-go-to-Europe, road-trip movie that is the first hour or so. The insights into the character's youths does not add to the story at all. These men, heroic as their actions were in real life, are not professional actors. It makes as much sense as having the Sistine Chapel renovated by a bunch of hockey players. I was at the point of breaking off watching this movie at many points, and the end left me totally unsatisfied and with the question of why somebody would waste an hour and a half of their life with this. Now I'm wasting another 5 minutes writing this review, so you don't have to. You're welcome!

This is a good film. It's a true event so I didn't expect Superman or Batman to show up. I just watched the film for what it was worth. Some people expect too much out of a film, I don't. As for bad acting, these were the real guys not Robert Redford or George Clooney.

To begin with, the three men who performed this act of courage deserve all the praise and honor they have received. They stood brave in the face of evil and terrorism and managed to prevent disaster.

With that aside, this is truly one of the worst films I have ever seen. There is a scene that takes place in early on in the film that features posters of two of Eastwoods earlier works, Jersey Boys and Letter from Iwo Jima, as well as Stanley Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket. My advice, spend your money renting one of those movies before shelling out the money for a movie ticket for this latest hiccup in Eastwood's otherwise remarkable filmography. It starts with acting and to put it simply, it's just abysmal. Right from the start, the children playing the young heroes just aren't at the quality of what you would expect. The wooden writing doesn't help and plagues the film with countless cringe moments throughout its runtime. Then we move to the heroes themselves, who would have been better served working as consultants for the film to ensure authenticity. They simply aren't good, and nearly every line they delivered was met with a few chuckles from the nearly capacity crowd at my showing. Even if the three were replaced with trained actors, it's hard to see how that would substantially improve the product. The film acts more like a buddy adventure movie for the better part of it's runtime, rather than the heroic thriller that was being advertised. It's incredibly misguided and marks an unfortunate low point in Clint Eastwood's remarkable career. You are better served reading an account of the event than wasting time and money on this dud of movie. A few stars go to the admittedly tense train sequence that serves as the basis for the film and commitment to authenticity that seems to have been maintained based on press tour comments from the actors.

3/10 - Very Bad

My movie theatre-working friend and I just finished watching this movie about and starring three American heroes who had prevented a terrorist attack in a Paris train a few years ago. They are Alek Skarlatos, Anthony Sadler, and Spencer Stone who all play themselves here. Other actors play them when they first met-at a school when they were kids and played war games together. Spencer gets most of the scenes since he was very gung ho about joining the Air Force and had some personal troubles while taking the tests along the way. Compared to the professionals surrounding them-many of whom me and my friend recognized from various TV shows and other movies-they aren't really actors but when the climatic scenes come, you feel some excitement. And the reward ceremony was also touching. So on that note, I and my friend recommend The 15:17 to Paris.

If I hadn't known Clint Eastwood was the director, I would have guessed some college guys in film school got their buddies together in order to take a European trip. It was all very good-hearted and I salute these young men, but $30,000,000 to make this movie seems over the top. I hope the 3 heroes go on from this to do even more heroic things.

After American Sniper- a true story about a man who is known only for the amount of people he killed on the battleground- one could be forgiven for thinking that Mr. Eastwood had gotten his jingoistic kink out of his system. This proves to be far from the case, and it would also seem that in a short amount of time he has lost all ability to make a remotely entertaining, cohesive, even interesting film after 2016's extremely solid Sully.

We begin by meeting three US friends, narration telling us that they are the best of friends, before a quick description of each, which could honestly describe almost any person on a certain day.

Oddly, there is a jump at least a decade back, where the three met in school, where they go to college, among other filler that could easily have the viewer wondering if they had walked into the wrong theatre. These exhaustive and pointless efforts to try and humanise the characters all fail miserably; the net result: faint, blurred caricatures of young males that we don't care about. Two of them, eventually, end up in the military.

After this near-pointless introduction, one that easily takes up over half the film, if not three quarters, the two soldiers and their other friend, roped into a trip to Europe, finally decide to board the ill-fated train to Paris. Don't fear though, there are more baffling, irrelevant scenes beforehand when the trio first arrive in Europe, so you'll have time for a toilet break.

As for the scenes on the train, a description of underwhelming is being far, far too kind. Not only are some scenes extremely hard to believe and the little amount of action haphazardly shot and hard to follow, the time spent on-board the train is a maximum of fifteen minutes.

The train that is the title of the film.

Subsequently, the overall result plays out like a poorly executed coming-of-age story with some tacky action scenes stapled roughly onto the end, sharp edges and all.

As if none of this were bad enough, we have the predictable The US can conquer all 'theme' looming overhead. To be fair, there aren't any non-US people being demonised. But apart from some lip service that is easily missed, the incredibly short time spent on the train is spent focused on the three Americans.

The biggest problem with the latter is that these scenes take at least half of the passengers who helped halt the situation out of the equation. Yes, two of the Americans were trained by the military and, perhaps, deserve more screen-time. But, according to reports of the averted disaster, the first three to react and help with the the threat were two Frenchmen and one British citizen, followed by the three we actually see do all the heavy lifting on-screen.

I think this says more than you need to know about this atrocity of a film.

Hang up the gloves Clint. For both our sanity. This has no redeeming qualities at all.

All the reviews by the professionals said this was just an ok film. Yet, having read the story of Eastwood deciding to star the actual "stars/heroes" I thought it might be worth seeing. Also, the three soldiers who were on the train meant to be having a trip through Europe for pleasure and their "being in the right place at the right time" was amazing. They actually were so genuine and the film managed to convey the decency as well as their bravery in an incredible moment. Why this got poor reviews I do not know. Maybe such heroism is not "cool". But as a normally liberal older person, I so agree with Francois Mitterant that we should attempt to "do something" and not cower if possible. The three brave men were wonderful to watch in the film as well - not bad "actors" at all!

The name Clint Eastwood is enough to drag my skinny ass to the cinema most days of the week. Throw in the fact that most people are watching either Black Panther or Shape Of The Water. And I could pretty much guarantee I would not be annoyed by other people in there.

I can certainly see why it is not for everyone and at times the acting is not the greatest, but they are not professional actors and are more than adequate. In fact I have seen worse professional actors. The second act drags a bit with a lot of filler scenes, but I think the ly off is worth it.

Clint should be applauded for having the none acting Experienced heroes portraying themselves. Certainly a bold move. There are some professional actors in there Thomas Lennon with Judy Greer and Jenna Fisher as two of the boys mothers too. All three child actors are decent too. I think Clint is always good at getting performances from children.

I think it deserves to be seen as Clint knows how to direct and it's a true story featuring the real heroes

We went to see this at the cinema without reading any reviews because all Clint Eastwood´s movies so far have been amazin, but this was a huge let down. It´s amateurish and there is barely any story to tell. Really bad.

Don't get me wrong, I think the purpose and meaning behind the movie is great - everything else however wasn't.

Between the real life people playing their own characters, a majority of scenes with no substance and contributing nothing to the underlying story, along with the first 80 minutes being drawn out for 10 minutes of the actual story at the very end.

Save the money, and the time - you'll be grateful you did.