The 15:17 to Paris (2018), Clint Eastwood 9 February 2018 USA (IMDB) (cinema, theater, actors)

[oeccscclhjhn]

BTW, and FYI, 15:17 is 3:17pm. ...

.

[charlygal]

Review:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtl1Q3zWBpc

[Suburban_Guy]

So so reviews

The 15:17 to Paris review – Clint Eastwood derails a tale of real-life terror

The movie starts with the tense initial situation aboard the train and then – exasperatingly – keeps cutting back to the three men’s dull and diffidently directed backstories, their unhappy and unsatisfactory childhoods, their early lives in the forces, and then their quite excruciatingly boring backpacking holiday, which we all have to live through in real time before they climb aboard the 15:17 to Paris and we reach the main event.

Clint Eastwood's 15:17 to Paris is a well-intentioned disaster: EW review

More than three-quarters of 15:17 is lead-up to the train attack, which is at least thrillingly shot and edited. Outside of that short sequence, the rest is filler, with Eastwood occasionally dipping heavy-handedly into his ideas of American principles: distrust of authority figures, “boys will be boys” dismissiveness, and Christianity.

Much like Sully, there’s not enough meat on the bone for a feature. (The padding has padding.) And like American Sniper, it shows little interest in finding a deeper meaning in its characters, their actions, and their country. D

The 15:17 to Paris Is a Bizarre Recreation of
Real-Life Bravery

I’m here to report what seems like a serious inaccuracy in the advertising of The 15:17 to Paris. According to the film’s poster, it was directed by Clint Eastwood, but I’m pretty sure the drama I watched was made by Tommy Wiseau—the eccentric artist behind the “so bad it’s good,” cult-classic movie The Room. How else to explain the halting dialogue, the way entire scenes have absolutely no bearing on the larger plot, and the ensemble of actors who have never been in a motion picture before?

[oeccscclhjhn]

Don't believe them (critics). My favorite, go to critic gave it 2 out of 4 stars. While I rarely do this, I read his entire review before I saw it. He was wrong on several counts. The three guys were great. The back story made the characters into what they did. Unfortunately, it's plain to me that there is politics in these reviews, against Clint Eastwood. That's just the way it is. But seeing this film changes everything. Follows the book very well. I have it 9/10.

[charlygal]

Originally Posted by oeccscclhjhn

Don't believe them (critics). My favorite, go to critic gave it 2 out of 4 stars. While I rarely do this, I read his entire review before I saw it. He was wrong on several counts. The three guys were great. The back story made the characters into what they did. Unfortunately, it's plain to me that there is politics in these reviews, against Clint Eastwood. That's just the way it is. But seeing this film changes everything. Follows the book very well. I have it 9/10.

I've not seen any commentary against Eastwood. Perhaps the critics really didn't like the movie and you did. That's okay.

[oeccscclhjhn]

Originally Posted by charlygal

I've not seen any commentary against Eastwood.

It's implied.

[Mircea]

I thought Sully sucked, so I'm glad I didn't have to pay to see it.

I'm not really interested in watching 75 minutes of fluff, to get to 15 minutes of action. I'll wait until I can see for free.

[Suburban_Guy]

I'm not interested in fluff either, but there have been several movies where critics hated it and I liked it a lot, so regardless I will probably catch this later next week.

I hated American Sniper though.

[charlygal]

Originally Posted by oeccscclhjhn

It's implied.

Do you have a link? I'd like to view the review.

[Ro2113]

Originally Posted by oeccscclhjhn

It's implied.

Perhaps you are looking for something that isn't there to get worked up over.