The 15:17 to Paris

I'm always intrigued by these "real" casting films, of which there are very few. 

The last one I can remember (though I'm sure I'm missing some) is Act of Valor -- I had to go deep into the history of Rath's Reviews to find that review -- a film that had its faults, but was inspiring simply because of the men and women that represent our military every day. 

Clint Eastwood, director of The 15:17 to Paris, has been on a hot streak lately with American Sniper and Sully (lets forget about the abysmal Jersey Boys) and this type of film seems to fit into his M.O. really well; an intense, real-life story that features true heroes. 

With 15:17 however, Eastwood went one step further with his realism and cast the ACTUAL trio from this harrowing event. For those unfamiliar, or perhaps you've forgotten, The 15:17 to Paris is about an ISIS terrorist who thought it would be a good idea to get on a train full of innocent people in Europe, carrying over 300 rounds of ammunition, and kill them. Not sure that comes as a surprise to anyone that a piece of shit like that from a scum-of-the-earth organization just wanted to create "terror" (can you tell that I have no patience for them?) but what he didn't count on was a train outfitted with a handful of gentleman that have some massive cahones. A group of 4 men stopped the attack and prevented what could have been an ungodly massacre. 

The 15:17 to Paris has a wide span of reviews right now from professional critics, some praising it and its real casting while others are calling it awful and a huge misstep for Eastwood. I land somewhere in the middle as the film, at its best, is a fine example of what makes Eastwood's films so damn gripping, while at its worst the film is slow, unnecessary, and features some atrocious acting. 

That Moment When...
You're about to kick some ISIS ass!

It may surprise you that the awful acting doesn't come from the 3 real Americans the film focuses on. Sure their dialogue is stilted, their delivery off a bit, and you get the feeling that the dialogue among that group of friends is probably decidedly more R-rated. I was still impressed with them when it counts though and among my issues with the film, they really aren't one of them. My single biggest issue with the film is a hard one to wrestle with because the alternative is that this movie just doesn't get made or is really short. Put simply, there just isn't enough material here to warrant a feature film, at least as far as the actual event is concerned. To combat this, the film takes us all the way back to their childhood; an utterly painful recreation of times in their lives that don't really matter, where the themes painted are a stretch to connect back to the present day and the child actors are some of the worst I've ever seen. Perhaps we've been spoiled by children of It and Stranger Things, but I was growing increasingly frustrated with the ~30 minutes that are spent in these guys' elementary school days. Matters are made worse by awkward flash-forwards to the attempted attack on the train that last for only a few moments and you end up seeing again at the end anyway. 

Arguably the later years in their lives are more interesting. They go their separate ways with 2 of them joining branches of the military. This at least relates back to why/how they were able to accomplish what they did and it's a thousand times more interesting and less cringe-worthy than the childhood years, even if at its core these moments are still unnecessary too. Once we get to their Europe trip, the film feels like it's driving forward to something and is all the better for it, culminating in the attack. It should come as no surprise that even though we know the outcome, this scene is insanely intense thanks to Eastwood and some passionate performances by the 3 men. Much like Sully, even knowing the outcome can't prevent your heart from racing during a well-filmed scene and the attack is brutal, a bit grisly, and I'll be damned if I wasnt [internally] cheering every time the terrorist got the shit beat out of him. What the heroes on that train did was nothing short of extraordinary and I even shudder to think how bad a contained shooter event like that could have been.

When you really think about it, not many of us would do the same thing in their shoes.
Truly incredible

In a way, The 15:17 to Paris has a fatal flaw. I wish it would have been bold and released as a 60-70 minute film, contained to only their military careers and forward. Movies that short don't really happen anymore, but it's clear -- painfully so during the childhood segments -- that the film thought it needed extra, meaningful content before it got to climax. I don't think it needed a significant portion of that content and in that regard represents a poor decision by Eastwood and his team. Otherwise however, it's an interesting and inspiring look at three real-life heroes who don't have some flashy Hollywood actors portraying them.

CONS

• The decision to go back to their childhood was detrimental to the film as a whole. It makes it feel longer than it really is, doesn't add hardly anything to the narrative (even though it tries), and the child actors are really not good
• Features odd flash-forwards to the attack that don't go anywhere and feel awkwardly out of place
• A few areas where the script feels limiting for these "new" actors
• Forgettable original score

PROS

• Once we begin to learn about their military background, the film becomes more interesting and worthwhile
• The scenes during their Europe trip are fun and make this group feel like an endearing pack of friends
• The attack itself is intense, violent, and well filmed/edited. Eastwood doing what he does best
• Bonus point because the terrorist lost and got his ass kicked
• Aside from its awful first portion, the film is a strong representation of its heroes and the weight of the actions that they took

Rath's Review Score | 7/10

 

•