Le 15h17 pour Paris

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 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.

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

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.

If this movie was an experiment, it mainly failed. The movie drags on and on with pointless scenes and zero dramatic build-up. The real life characters-love their bravery and courage to be sure-are not exactly gripping actors. Clint should have left the acting to professional actors. This could have been so much better if the story had focused on the terrorist's path, maybe in parallel with the heroes. Their life story just wasn't remarkable or interesting. The last 5% of the movie was good, but this was a long road to a small house.