The 15:17 To Paris ** 

Hot off Sully Director Clint Eastwood returns to the true story big screen adaption genre with The 15:17 To Paris the true story of the foiled terrorist attack on a train heading to Paris by three Americans.

It sounds great on paper, with Clint’s CV as well what could go wrong? Well the problem is that is does unfortunately.

Clint’s riskiest choice was to cast the real life people in the film as themselves. Its sounds bizarre but in an attempt to reach real life accuracy Clint changed them from consultants to actors or both I suppose technically.

The real problem is they are heroes yes but actors no and unfortunately no matter how hard they all try, they never actually reach a point of true naturalism or fit that comfortably into the roles of themselves.      

A reinforcement of this point was when I saw all three stars a Talk Show where they all seemed relaxed happy and different to the onscreen personas. So if the film versions still weren’t a true version of them it doesn’t seem a move worth the risk really and certainly didn’t make my day Clint.  

Spencer even asked Eastwood whether they should have acting lessons, which Clint declined wanting it just be natural.  However it doesn’t appear to be natural, how could it be reenacting your life in front of a camera is not a natural thing to do, were not all Kardashians you know Mr Eastwood. 

Then the back story which perhaps starts with relevance slowly differs in and out of the point, finishing on something that resembles a tourist promotion video rather than a thriller or drama or whatever.

The most useful part of the back flash was establishing what a flawed character Spencer is. The amount of failure he has in his life building to the vital moment of the train but it’s kind of white washed amongst such absolute non relevant sequences selfies, wine sipping, walking during their European travels. It almost seems like an attempt to simply boost the running time. It’s almost the equivalent of seeing Sully taking a shit the morning he landed on the Hudson. Yes maybe it is historically accurate, but does that make it pulse racing entertainment? I find it definitively unlikely.  

 

In Sully the inciting incident is short but it shown from different perspectives, different emotions built up and revealed.

Instead of filling the running time with such non relevant, interesting scenes before the train why didn’t they show (like Sully) what happens afterwards to beef out the story? We could have seen the parent’s reactions, the ill judging Head Teacher’s reaction, the Military’s reaction? The vindication of being a hero after years of negativity would have been a rewarding pay off.

What did the boys do next wit their hero status? They became stars. They talked a Hollywood Director into making there film! There lives were changed! Do we see that? No, we see scenes of them drinking flat beer in Dam instead, damn indeed. 

This film seems rushed into production and as a result the script lacks a more interesting narrative and when linked to such a interesting amazing story it’s a accomplishment in their own right how they got it so misjudged. 

A great idea misjudged none the less that does deflect from the amazing actions of bravery from tourists who did prevent a potentially massive disaster.