Type in any movie or show to find where you can watch it, or type a person's name.

User Reviews for: The 15:17 to Paris

Nancy L Draper
4/10  6 years ago
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]
Like  -  Dislike  -  90
Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
filmtoaster
2/10  4 years ago
_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?
Like  -  Dislike  -  10
Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
Atlantis14
6/10  6 years ago
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.
Like  -  Dislike  -  10
Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
Screen-Space
/10  6 years ago
"An instinctual act of remarkable heroism is afforded the least remarkable effort of director Clint Eastwood’s long career.."

Read the full review here: http://screen-space.squarespace.com/reviews/2018/2/8/the-1517-to-paris.html
Like  -  Dislike  -  0
Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
Back to Top