The 15:17 To Paris Is Well-Intentioned But Ultimately Proves To Be A Massive Creative Misfire For Director Clint Eastwood

      Every great filmmaker makes a film that despite their most noblest efforts to make it succeed, just doesn't end up doing well for various reasons or ends up succeeding just enough to shake off the flop label, but still manages to pale in comparison to the rest of their work. For director Clint Eastwood, The 15:17 To Paris unfortunately proved too be not just a major cinematic disappointment from the acclaimed and highly-skilled filmmaker whose been on a roll in regards to making stellar movies since 2003's Mystic River with few missteps, it also raises the question of whether the legendary actor and director has hit his peak with delivering stellar projects and should consider retiring from directing. What should've easily been one of last years first real award season contenders, turned out to be a major disappointment as the name behind the directors chair and the story should've been a sure bet to be a success with audiences. What killed the movie audiences may find themselves asking: The answer basically is poor storytelling and replacing actors with the real people in the roles although requiring them to act somehow removed the realism and made it feel staged.

      For those coming to this realization upon watching the new Eastwood directed biopic, the results are surprising but not so much as Eastwood has churned out a number of gems over the past decade such as Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby, Flags Of Our Fathers, Letters From Iwo Jima, Changeling, Gran Tarino, Invictus, American Sniper, and Sully while also having his share of misfires such as Hereafter, J Edgar, and Jersey Boys. With The 15:17 To Paris, Eastwood tries to be ambitious with his efforts to honor the real heroes of his story, but those efforts are undermined by an unfocused narrative and a misguided decision to cast the real life heroes in the roles of playing themselves in the film without any prior acting experience with the latter showing in the final product. The story for The 15:17 To Paris focuses on a pair of three American Marines discovering a terrorist plot on a Paris-bound train. It is not a question of whether the actual true story is captivating enough to be put on film (It's more than worthy), however Eastwood's decision to stray away from the actual events on the train and give the audience endless flashbacks of how the three young boys met in school or their struggles growing up takes away from the central focus of the film, making it less exciting and ultimately boring which a story like this one should never end up being the case.

      The biggest problem with the film is the fact that it doesn't feel spontaneous or real but rather feels staged. This can be attributed to the fact that Eastwood decided to make a bold decision by casting the actual persons in the story to play themselves. Watching the movie, one can clearly see what Eastwood was trying to do in regards to placing the real people in the story as he wanted it to feel genuine for the audience and recapture the same kind of emotions during the train sequences but instead of doing just that, the opposite effect happens here where it feels like everything is rehearsed rather than drawing the audience into the moment. This method of bringing realism to the story has proven in the past to be a dicey move as the results have either been very successful such as Paul Greengrass 2006 drama United 93 utilized real Air Traffic Control employees to act in the film to reenact the tension and confusion of what happened that day with the end result being the film ended up becoming one of the most critically adored films of that year. The second movie that attempted to utilize this strategy and ended up failing was 2012's Act Of Valor placing real Navy SEALs in the roles with the end result being the film received largely negative reviews despite it's noble intentions. 

      It's not a question that Eastwood wishes to honor the heroes behind the films story, but he also fails to understand surprisingly the difference between his previous directorial film Sully proving to be a hit with audiences while The 15:17 To Paris failing to leave the same impact. Sully was a success because it showcased Eastwood's craftsmanship as a director while joining forces with Tom Hanks and utilizing his phenomenal acting talents as well as Aaron Eckhart. Eastwood and Hanks drew the audience back to the event in question and made them believe they were on the plane when it landed in the Hudson. Eastwood used top notch actors to help bring the emotion and realism of the story to the big screen. With The 15:17 To Paris, the audience never gets the feeling that they are on the train with the three young men. The film also suffers from an uneven narrative as the film detours from its main storyline to show the developing friendship of the three young heroes Alex Skarlatos, Anthony Sadler, and Spencer Stone. While there's nothing wrong with wanting the audience to become acquainted with our main characters and get a feel for who they are, the moments on the train are compelling but end up becoming too few in between the rest of the movie that has a lot of unnecessary exposition and build up. One wonders if the film would've been more powerful if Eastwood focused the story moreso on the train, and let the event unfold with the audience getting to know the characters while on the train with professional actors playing the real life heroes.

      The 15:17 To Paris despite being a huge cinematic letdown and disappointment, was made with intentions no less than honoring whats unquestionably a true act of heroism. By casting the real life heroes in the film, Eastwood's clear goal was to reach for the stars but by doing so ended up falling far below the full potential the story carries. The film lacks true momentum in terms of building up suspense and is poorly written rather than being set-up for the main characters to relive their trauma on
the train as well as a moment of selfless heroism. The tragedy is not that the film itself is bad, its that it was placed in the hands of an amazing director and still turned out awful. Somehow the movie feels like a wasted opportunity rather than leaving an impact upon audiences the way Eastwood's most recent films American Sniper and Sully did.

 The train sequences despite feeling staged are interesting and somewhat exciting to watch giving audiences a small glimpse of the film they could've had if the script placed more emphasis on the moment rather than giving us tons of unnecessary background information on the three heroes (Did anyone really need to see their trip in Paris up to them getting on the train? It wasn't necessary). Eastwood doesn't show us the motive behind the attempted terrorist attack on the train nor do we see the terrorists perspective unlike Paul Greengrass United 93, which gave an extremely well-balanced viewpoint of both sides behind its story. Sadly The 15:17 to Paris proves to be a creative failure for Eastwood, making audiences ponder the question of whether he's losing the momentum he's been riding on since Mystic River. While The Mule was a significant improvement over his work here, it still doesn't touch the quality of some of his strongest films from the early 00's era. For now, The 15:17 To Paris ends up being one of the biggest cinematic misfires of 2018, which is a shame because this film had potential to be great.  

                                                                     
 Final Verdict: SKIP IT