Equalizer 2 Is A Lackluster Sequel That's saved By Denzel Washington

       The first Equalizer was a stylishly violent yet effective action flick with a strong performance from Denzel Washington. Teaming up with Antoine Fuqua for his second collaboration post-Training Day, the talented duo delivered a brutal yet exciting vigilante tale that centered around Washington's character dispensing justice to those inflicting harm on others. While the end result wasn't perfect (Equalizer while entertaining was no Man On Fire), the film carried a sizable dose of energy while proving to be an effective vigilante action thriller. Fast-forward four years after the events of the first movie, Equalizer 2 continues the story set up by the previous film with both movies being based on a 1980's TV series of the same title. Marking the fourth collaboration between Washington and Fuqua, following Training Day, Equalizer, and 2016's The Magnificent Seven, Equalizer 2 proves to be another successful collaboration between the two with the sequel being a strong effort thriving off Washington's talent even if the film isn't quite as good as the previous film.

      Equalizer 2's plot focuses on vigilante and former CIA operative Robert McCall (Played by Denzel Washington), hunting down the people who murdered one of his closest friends. He ends up traveling through Turkey, Belgium and the US before discovering the identity of the murderers and unleashing some vigilantism justice. The first Equalizer worked so well because of the way it set up Washington's character McCall. There was a certain mystery to him outside of his insane skills in fighting and his dishing out of pure vigilantism. Washington and Fuqua created an interesting character that delivered kinetic action while having a moral compass to him that the audience can get behind. Being the first ever sequel that Denzel Washington ever starred in his entire career, he does a fantastic job reprising his role with a script that comes across as being more personal than the first working as a character study for Robert McCall. The audience gets to really know his character in the story and take a liking to his relationship with the young neighborhood artist he befriends named Miles (The scene where he delivers his big speech to him after leading him away from a local gang is terrific). The greatest thrill that the audience gets out of seeing Washingtons character in the movie is how he's able to outsmart, maneuver, and creatively figure out ways to take out his opponents in the most entertaining fashion. He even goes as far as using a stop-watch to time how fast he's able to take out the bad guys he counters which the audience can't help but laugh at. Other side characters from the first movie such as Bill Pullman's and Melissa Leo's characters return with significant yet minimal roles, playing a key part in the sequels plot with Leo's characters fate being the envelope pusher for McCall exacting revenge. Whereas the first movie dealt with Washington's character saving a young girl from the control of Russian gangsters, the sequel takes a more personal approach with its story in terms of exploring the character of McCall showing his attempts to live a quiet and peaceful life until hes forced to switch back into vigilante mode when he witnesses injustice happening in front of him. It's the quieter moments with the character that make Roberts character engaging as well as the action sequences more thrilling, particularly his opening fight sequence on the train with his character cleverly disguised, his moment as an Lyft driver looking after one of his transports and beating up the men who took advantage of her while demanding they give him a 5 star rating for his services (It's funnier than it reads), and his climactic action sequence during a storm. Equalizer 2 doesn't feel like it carries the same weight as it's predecessor plot wise, but it deserves points for attempting to take the story in a different direction while doing a very good job at doing so.

      In terms of acting performances, Washington is the heart and soul of the movie with him carrying the bulk of the film on his shoulders. He's brilliant here and brings all the right emotions to the part. He's the friend you would want to be associated with, but also the person you wouldn't want to screw over simultaneously. His performance alone makes the entire film worth watching. Ashton Sanders does a strong job playing Miles Whittaker, the young neighborhood artist with a troubled background whom Washington befriends and shares a father and son dynamic with. Sanders impresses here and works great with Washington with the two characters being the heart and soul of the film. Bill Pullman and Melissa Leo return for the sequel with both giving strong supporting roles though their characters feel rather wasted in this one given their potential. Pedro Pascal shines in his role as the main antagonist proving to be an effective villain while holding his own against Denzel Washington. As a whole, the cast is strong and all deliver terrific performances with the roles their given though it's Washington who runs the show essentially with another excellent performance.

      As far as directing and writing goes, Antoine Fuqua returns to the directors chair for the sequel proving not just to be a strong director of action, but also manages to get another terrific performance out of Denzel Washington when the two collaborate together on a project. Whereas the first movie was a super soldier style story, the sequel is that with doses of meaningful human subplots sprinkled throughout the film in between the action with subplots involving McCall's character helping one of his neighborhood friends find his long-lost sister or trying to put Miles life on the right track. While these subplots are effective in showing the kindness of McCalls characters heart, they also distract from the plots main narrative. The script by Richard Wenk has Robert McCalls character coming across as being a Batman-esque style comic book hero as he's shown performing his acts of vigilantism (The films impressive opening sequence on the train with McCall in disguise) while switching back to his daily routine as a Lyft driver transporting different varieties of people and performing noble acts for his community. The formula of a superhero movie is in play here with the general plot being grounded in reality. The comical aspect of the story seems to be that as menacing as the main villains come across as being, they easily get wiped out by Washingtons character making the experience an often fun and hilarious one for the audience as they know the main antagonists aren't aware of Washingtons characters capabilities. Despite the overall script being a strong one, it still manages to be a less compelling story than the first with the added subplots on the side ultimately distracting the films story from the main focus which is Robert McCalls character exacting revenge for the murder of his longtime friend Susan, played by Melissa Leo. While Susan's death is an effective twist that prompts Washington's character to take action, the audience has a hard time finding enough reason to care other than wanting to see McCall in action. The subplot involving Miles being rescued and set on a straight path by McCall while witnessing him in action feels tacked on despite being effective. It's noteworthy to see that Washingtons character inspired Miles in the end to do something with his life, but it also serves as a detour from the films main theme rather than assist the plot.

      Despite being Washingtons first ever sequel in his career, Equalizer 2 is not a bad effort as he does a damn fine job once again of putting on a fantastic performance. The film itself is a strong sequel overall and reasonably entertaining, though it feels like a disappointment in a sense when paired up with the first film. Washingtons performance is the key to the films success as he makes the experience extremely worthwhile regardless of the rest of the films flaws, which range from an uneven narrative to unnecessary subplots. In terms of the plot being similar to a comic book movie with the film utilizing the same formula essentially, Equalizer 2 is the closest that Hollywood has come to put Washington into the genre. His character switching on and off vigilante mode like a light switch, is thrilling with his outsmarting of the main villains coming across as feeling a bit cartoonish. Here's hoping that if an Equalizer 3 is made, the script is much stronger and more focused next time around. Equalizer 2 is an entertaining and genuinely exciting action movie experience, that owes much of its success to Denzel Washington with Antoine Fuqua bringing the kinetic action once again. The films climactic action sequence is one of if not the strongest action sequence in the whole film showing the true strength and intelligence of Robert McCalls character.

Final Verdict: If you're a fan of the first Equalizer then this is worth watching. Just don't expect it to be as good.

Rampage Is Ridiculously Over-The-Top Yet Works Well At Being Such

      Making a movie based off a video game is no easy task with most cases being the end result is nothing but largely disappointing for the most part. There are few exceptions though where the end result proves to be reasonably entertaining (The original Mortal Kombat movie is still the best video game turned film adaptation yet) but audiences have it in their minds that a video game movie will most likely be disappointing. With Rampage, the end result isn't horrible as the movie is actually fun and entertaining to watch as a brainless blockbuster, that amounts to a roaring good time. Based off a 1986 arcade game by Bally Midway and later released by Warner Brothers Interactive Entertainment in the 2000's, the story for the game centered around the players trying to take control of gigantic monsters, while trying to survive against an onslaught of military forces. The film keeps the spirit of the game intact with a storyline that feels like a cross between a Godzilla movie mixed with both King Kong and Mighty Joe Young with The Rock's relationship with the giant gorilla George. While the end result doesn't top the source material it draws from, it substitutes the audience playing the creatures and wrecking havoc for a traditional monster film, that works very well as being popcorn entertainment.

      The plot for Rampage keeps the spirit of the video game intact while finding a plausible story to place the action around. The story focuses on an anti-poaching primatologist (Played by Dwayne Johnson) with few human connections carrying a special bond for an intelligent silverback gorilla he saved as a baby named George. When a genetic-editing experiment goes wrong, the gas from the experiment turns the friendly ape George into a giant raging monster with other giant creatures emerging and beginning their campaign of rampage across major cities. It is up to Dwayne Johnson's character and a geneticist (Played by Skyfall's Naomie Harris) to help the primatologist search for an antidote. Rampage feels like it borrows from Mighty Joe Young in a sense where Johnson's character shares a human connection with the silver gorilla George, much like Charlize Theron's character Jill shares the same kind of emotional bond with the gorilla Joe, with both stories having the young gorillas being saved by the human characters and looked after by them. The relationship between George and Dwayne Johnson's character is the heart of the film and what gives the film an ounce of heart making story poignant outside of the insane action sequences, that follow once the monsters begin wrecking havoc. The rest of the script plays out much like a generic monster movie with cardboard cutout and cliched villains taking center place with ulterior motives for using the monsters DNA. Despite the endless amounts of cliches the film borrows from other monster movies, it still manages to make them work in a way that makes the story serviceable to the action while being entertaining enough to overcome its glaring flaws.

      Another one of the films strongest points outside of its mayhem is the performances of the main cast with Dwayne Johnson once again putting on his muscular tough guy persona and showcasing his charisma. He makes the character work and his scenes with George, particularly the ones where he tries to keep him out of danger are genuinely touching. Naomie Harris does a solid job playing the geneticist as well as Johnson's characters love interest in the film, making it another area where the film borrows from Mighty Joe Young with the main male and female stars both sharing common ground as well as a mutual attraction to each other with their feelings taking a backseat to taking George's well-being. Malin Akerman and Jake Lacy deliver solid performances as the films main antagonists, CEOs of Energyne, who are responsible for the infection and mutation of animals turned monsters George, Ralph, and Lizzie with the mutagenic serum for the project called Rampage. The characters of Claire and Brett come across as being generic, cardboard villainous characters in a typical Sci-Fi flick, who perform secretive experiments that mess with the mutation of an animals growth with the end result being disastrous. Joe Manganiello, P.J Byrne, and Marley Shelton deliver strong performances with the overall cast being effective and playing their roles to maximum effect for the type of story it is.

      As for the films directing and writing, director Brad Peyton reteams with Dwayne Johnson after their successful collaboration on San Andreas to deliver another action heavy mayhem flick, that serves as a vehicle for The Rock's charisma as an action star along with bringing the popular video game to life. Peyton sets up the first half of the movie establishing the relationship between George and The Rock, making the audience care about their bond while introducing all the side characters with the action taking over in the second half creating a gloriously ridiculous spectacle that's a true delight to watch. Peyton and The Rock know exactly what type of film they want to make here and don't hold back in delivering in the carnage, the humor, and the emotional connection audiences have between Johnson's character and George. Much like San Andreas, Peyton handles this picture by giving it the right sprinkles of action, drama, humor, heart while keeping its main stars front and center (The Rock and George).

      The films visual effects are impressive with all the monsters looking realistic and intense when they begin destroying cities. The films pacing is rapid, keeping the story moving frequently while never feeling boring nor moving too slow. The screenplay by Ryan Engle, Carlton Cuse, Ryan J. Condal, and Adam Sztykiel does its best to offer more than just mindless action given the material its adapting with an ounce of science. Like most action movies, the military and side characters are portrayed as being useless and making the wrong decisions with the main characters having the correct response to handling the situation. While some may find issue with the elaborating of the scientific reasoning behind the animals growing huge in size, others will appreciate that the writers attempted to give some level of depth and intelligence to the plot. Given that the human element of monster movies usually lands on the side of being rather flat, Rampage deserves props for attempting to break the mold and give audiences human characters that are somewhat appealing regardless of how cliched and cheesy they came off as being.

      In the end, Rampage is a film that was designed for one purpose only which is to entertain its audience to the fullest. It was never meant to be taken seriously nor be accurate in its presentation of the science aspect of the story. The scenes with the monsters fighting and destroying cities is the films main highlight with the second half delivering the goods with the first half attempting to develop a plausible storyline with characters the audience can become connected with. The story presented here is straight-forward with the scenario being designed for the monsters to take over. The overall experience is one that is highly enjoyable because the concept is just plain silly yet fun with the cast looking like they enjoyed the experience of making the film. The physics of the movie can come across as being outrageous at times such as the main characters surviving a collapsing building or the biological use of CRISPR, but the audience isn't meant to look deep into those things and just get swept along for the ride. Overall Rampage is terrific fun that should not be dissected nor held under a microscope as it works best as being great fun with intense yet effective music, charismatic leads, a heartfelt relationship between human and non-human, lots of impressive action, solid humor, and characters that are as appealing as its genre allows them to be. The film is nothing more than B- movie cheese that looks great visually and remains a blast from start to finish. If one is looking for intelligent dialogue and science that's fairly accurate with a more complex plot, they should watch Jurassic Park. Rampage was made to entertain and it does a fantastic job at doing so with its breathtaking scenes of urban destruction mixed with The Rock, making the film completely over-the-top but extremely hard to resist.

Final Verdict: If you want brainless, over-the-top action with top notch special effects and Dwayne Johnson as the lead, this movie is for you as it works great as being a traditional monster movie with surprising moments of emotion and heart.

Skyscraper Is The Towering Inferno Meets Die Hard With Less Thrilling Results

     Originality is tough to find in Hollywood these days as nearly all of today's action movies borrow from past classics, particularly highly influential ones which Skyscraper draws much if its plot from. One could basically say that this film is essentially The Towering Inferno meets Die Hard with the main twist being the lead is Dwayne Johnson with a prosthetic leg. With The Rocks status as an action movie star being in prime status, it would seem that this would be the perfect vehicle for him to stretch his legs as an action star. Since the release of the first Die Hard, that film has been highly influential in the action movie genre with it being heavily used in films such as Under Siege, Passenger 57, Speed, and newer films such as Olympus Has Fallen and White House Down. Taking the concept of two iconic and classic movies for their time and meshing them together requires that the film brings an ounce of originality to it in order for it to be fully successful. The end result is a mildly entertaining yet underwhelming action flick, that relies too heavily on the films it draws its concept from with the main saving grace being the charismatic performance of Dwayne Johnson as the films main lead.

      The plot for Skyscraper focuses on a retired war veteran and FBI hostage team leader (Played by Dwayne Johnson) working as a Skyscraper security expert. While on assignment in Hong Kong, the tallest building at 225 floors is set on fire with him being framed for arson while being forced to rescue his family whose trapped inside the building by criminals. Looking at the synopsis for this movie, one can clearly see the DNA of both The Towering Inferno and Die Hard merged together to create the story for this film (Though it feels more like copy and paste). The problem is outside of the strong similarities to both classics storylines, that's all there is to the plot as it lacks freshness and originality of those films making the plot come across as being predictable and a generic knock-off of Die Hard. The main difference between this movie, Olympus Has Fallen, and White House Down is although the latter two films drew inspiration from the concept of Die Hard, they both introduced their own creative spins to their stories, giving their films life. The problem with Skyscraper is nearly 80 percent of the film is borrowed material with the other 20 percent attempting to break new ground. The film also utilizes the same generic subplots as the previous films with the films architect feeling responsible for his actions much like The Towering Inferno and the police failing to support Dwayne Johnson's character much like Dwayne T. Johnson's character disapproved of John McClanes tactics of taking out the bad guys in Die Hard. The main heroes family being taken hostage in the tall Skyscraper also serves as borrowed material from Die Hard and the White House action movies with the Skyscraper being the films setting being lifted from both Hard and Towering Inferno. Skyscraper is by no means a terrible movie, it just comes across as being a mediocre and silly action flick, that's devoid of any originality and surprise to its script which would've made it special on its own.

      As for the films main cast, Dwayne Johnson and Neve Campbell are the main appeal for this uninspired and unoriginal action flick. Johnson brings his action star charisma to his role here making the audience enjoy his presence with him making his character somewhat relatable. Neve Campbell does well at playing Johnson's wife in the story though she doesn't have much to do other than play the typical wife of the hero taken hostage scenario, that's been done to death since the release of the first Die Hard. Despite the story not giving her much to do, she still delivers a strong performance and showcases great chemistry with The Rock. Chin Han does a solid job playing Zhao Longji, the genius millionaire and builder of the worlds tallest building in Hong Kong, The Pearl. Roland Moller is serviceable playing the films main antagonist Kores Botha, though he comes nowhere close to the memorable and iconic performance Alan Rickman left behind as Hans Gruber. Given that might be an unfair comparison as the two performances shouldn't be compared, the fact that the movie draws such heavy inspiration from Die Hard prompts it in a sense. Noah Taylor does his best with the material given to him as Mr. Pierce, one of Botha's mercenaries, impersonating an insurance agent. Other strong supporting performances from the cast include Byron Mann as Inspector Wu, Pablo Schreiber as Ben, and Elfina Luk as Sergeant Han. McKenna Roberts and Noah Cottrell get notable performances for playing Johnson and Campbell's children, delivering totally convincing and likable performances. As a whole, the cast is effective and does the best job they can with the script they're given with The Rock and Neve Campbell delivering the strongest and most appealing performances.

      In regards to the films directing and writing, Rawson Marshall Thurber does a serviceable job directing the film with the films main stunt pieces being the films main saving grace along with Dwayne Johnson as the lead. Thurber's choice as director for this film is an unusual one as his previous trackrecord of films consist of mostly comedies from Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story to Easy A and We're The Millers. The director worked with The Rock previously on Central Intelligence, which resulted in a box office success, most likely being the reason he was chosen as director to helm the film. Thurber's directing is standard and effective when it needs to be, though he's no John McTiernan in regards to building up suspense or strong characters the audience grows to care about before and after the action starts. The films script by Thurber might as well be a copy and paste of The Towering Inferno and Die Hard as he models Skyscraper to mirror those films to a T. Johnson's character Will Sawyer, had potential to be a strong action star but received little time to develop showing that audiences are more thrilled at seeing The Rock in the main role than the actual character he's playing. The opportunity was missed to create a new and memorable action hero. Sarah Sawyer is no Holly McClane and feels like she's just there to serve the plot in being the motivation for Will to spring into action with his one good leg.

      The villains in this film have no memorability and come across as being cardboard cut-out versions of much better ones in other movies. There is not one antagonist in this movie that comes anywhere close to the standard Alan Rickman left behind with Hans Gruber in regards to the acting, the intensity, and unpredictability of such a character. In all honesty, the building being on fire was more suspenseful and threatening to the characters than the villains are. Chin Han does well as Zhao despite his character feeling terribly similar to the one he played in The Dark Knight, no originality there with the same being said for the detectives. There are not any truly compelling characters in this story nor ones that the audience really can connect with on an emotional level. It says a great deal that the actors playing the characters are more interesting than the characters their playing. It's not a question of whether the Rock is good or not in this movie, he does very well. The problem lies with the material he's given and the lack of originality it carries.

       With a running time of 102 minutes, the story feels rushed and uninspired with no real development occurring with the main characters or villains. The story feels like it takes use of every major and predictable action movie cliche in the book to get its story off the ground. This film would've greatly benefited from a two hour plus running time as audiences could've learned more about Dwayne Johnson's character Will Sawyer, along with a deeper fleshing out of the main villains. The main attraction of the story is the Skyscraper making it the films pure spectacle. What this movie needed is a stronger script and character development to make it distinct without relying too much on the classics it leans on for comfort. The audience could've seen more of Neve Campbell's character and watched her and The Rock hook up after he recovered from the films opening and get married prior to the events later in the story. The Rock's character had potential to be a strong character outside of the typical family guy routine, but he isn't really given much time to be completely convincing in that area either. Skyscraper works best as being a throwaway action flick that you can put on and watch with your buddies then immediately dispense of it and throw on the first Die Hard to see how its truly done.

      What made that film the classic that it is today is not only that it was well directed, well written, and extremely well executed with a charismatic hero and villain, it had the most essential thing that an action movie needs in order to succeed, a heart. Skyscraper has the charismatic lead but is lacking in nearly every major category that made both The Towering Inferno and Die Hard classics. Johnson's character feels as if he's made into a superhuman form with him performing stunts that are unbelievable given his character's limitations (Is audiences really supposed to believe that he can leap from a crane to a window?) What made Bruce Willis character so engaging in Die Hard is as tough as he has, he was a human who bled, cried, and was afraid deep down despite succeeding in the end. Skyscraper aims for the stars but misses all the essential things that made the films it blatantly copies from great in their own forms and ultimately giving them a soul.

Final Verdict: If you're a fan of Dwayne Johnson, its worth watching at least once but will be instantly forgettable afterwards. Perhaps watch it and slip in Die Hard after to see how a proper action movie is done.

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