Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
Perhaps you are looking for something that isn't there to get worked up over.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
