Al final parece más un documental que una película

I was expecting the climax, but it did not

Outstanding and heartwarming.

Spencer Stone, Alek Skarlatos, and Anthony Sadler were three ordinary servicemen taking a train ride into Paris when they found themselves in the middle of an armed terrorist attack. The three men rushes into danger, disarmed and subdued the attacker, and treated the injured on the scene. The 15:17 to Paris is a big screen movie directed by Clint Eastwood (American Sniper) that tells their life stories played by the men themselves. It got some of the worst reviews of Eastwood's storied career (mine won't be better). There are two gigantic miscalculations when it comes to 15:17 to Paris: 1) having the real-life subjects play the adult versions of themselves, and 2) that there was enough material here to fill out an engaging, enlightening, fulfilling film experience.I assumed telling this real-life story as a movie was going to be a challenge to produce enough meaningful material to eek out a feature-length running time, and within the first five minutes I knew that I was doomed. We're sitting down to two single moms discussing their boys with their classroom teacher, and that teacher literally says, "If you don't medicate them now they'll just self-medicate later. Statistically, boys of single moms are more likely to have problems." My response: "What the hell, lady?!" This character was obviously engineered, from her very foundation, to be a walking, talking point of exposition and disagreement. No real teacher would ever utter these words so callously. It was this rude awakening that made me realize what a terribly written slog I was in for. At no point were these supporting characters going to come across as authentic human beings. Instead, it's a world populated by robots with bad social skills or unshakable faith played by familiar actors (Judy Greer, Jenna Fischer, Thomas Lennon, Tony Hale, Jaleel White of all people). Also, what little kid has a Full Metal Jacket poster in his bedroom? Did he not understand what that movie was about?These men can rightly serve as an inspiration, rising to the occasion in a true test of courage. No one will challenge the heroism. But what else is there to this story? The attack is presented as the framing device and as it plays out we segue into lengthy flashbacks about their lives leading up to this pivotal point in time. It's just that these three men lived fairly uneventful, normal lives until finding themselves in a unique situation. We don't seem to trace any significant, formative moments. Spending time with them as kids, then teens, and finally as adults doesn't so much provide greater understanding of them as people as it does pad out the running time. We watch them get in trouble twice at school for not having a hall pass. We watch them watch football. We watch them endure training montages. We watch the trio tour the sights of Italy and eat gelato. We watch an Army team retrieve a backpack. We watch Spencer get demoted for not stitching properly. Seriously, this is given time. It's not even until a full hour-plus into the movie before they confront the attack on the train.Chronicling the lives of normal, real-life people under extraordinary circumstances is not by itself a fatal flaw, as evidenced by the masterful and mournful United 93. The power of empathy allows us to leap into a multitude of perspectives. However, with United 93 there was an ongoing story that could unfold because of the scope of events. There were developments, deadly complications, and the slow realization of what was happening, what was going to happen, and what needed to be done. With 15:17 to Paris, the attack is uncomplicated and over relatively quickly. There's a reason Eastwood saves the train attack for the end because it cannot function as a sufficient movie plot on its own. Eastwood had a similar predicament with his previous film chronicling the heroism of the pilot who landed a plane on the Hudson River. The plane crash was thrilling and Tom Hanks added some layers to the portrayal of a man uncomfortable with the spotlight. 15:17 to Paris doesn't even have that much. It's a tedious trek to an all-too swift climax.The other large miscalculation was having the real-life actors portray themselves. These guys just are not actors. I suppose Eastwood felt the real-life figures would best understand the emotions of each scene, in particular the attack, but another approach would be simply teaching actors. The forced verisimilitude feels like a marketing gimmick meant to appeal to a select audience. Making things more difficult is that these guys just aren't that interesting as subjects. Sure there are broad strokes of characterization applied here and there but it's with very minimal effort (see above for some of the just-had-to-include plot moments). This is another reason actors would have been preferable, because these guys' lives don't have to be interesting for my benefit. Their lives were not destined to one day entertain me on the big screen. They can simply be normal people. On the other hand, watching normal people do normal, boring things without a more enriching sense of introspection, personalities, or depth is like being trapped watching someone else's home movies on a loop. Spencer Stone performs the best of his buds but none of them should expect a second career as an in-demand thespian.I feel bad saying this but I really just didn't care, and that's because the movie gave me no reason to do so here. Yes, these three men are heroes and their sense of normality might lend itself toward a larger theme about the everyday capabilities of heroism, but there isn't enough here to make me care beyond the train attack. The screenwriting does not present them as multi-dimensional characters and perhaps that's because of the guys' limitations as actors, exacerbating a spiral that only makes 15:17 to Paris less involving as it chases after the idol of authenticity. Eastwood is known for being an economical filmmaker but it feels like he should have been even more judicious here. The adherence to strictly the facts strips the film of some of its larger emotional power. There's far too much filler and not enough substance to balance out 90-plus minutes. You'll grow restless. If there's a lesson to be learned from The 15:17 to Paris, let it be that every story needs a reason to exist and, when in doubt, trust actors to deliver that story.Nate's Grade: C-

it was ok not the best

It's very rare that a Clint Eastwood movie receives predominantly negative reviews, but The 15-17 To Paris, among his weakest efforts, has achieved this feat, and it's easy to see why. The story of the 3 American tourists who saved an entire trainload of passengers, and possibly even more had the situation continued to escalate, is undoubtedly inspiring and heart-warming, but so much time is given to the build-up that the actual payoff itself feels like an afterthought. The film is like a European tourism advert that gets interrupted by a brief terrorist plot. That might be the point, since that's what actually happened in real life, but if we got more details of the attack itself and its aftermath we might have had an easier time grasping its true implications. Eastwood's Directorial skill is evident, as you always feel connected to the story and he keep things taut and lean, getting the best out of his performers as well as the script. His approach allows the acting of the 3 real-life heroes to appear naturalistic, and if nothing else, it really makes you want to backpack around Europe. It not's a terrible film, but when you consider the list of flicks The Man With No Name has given us in the past, it's hard to believe this one was crafted by the same hands.

Had this starred actual actors I would have prob rated it lower but I couldn't bring myself to give these heroes a sub 3* score.

Fantastic film! It amazes me how people only care to see action in a movie rather than the true meaning behind a great film. Clint Eastwood once again doesn't disappoint. Different generation that lacks appreciation I suppose as to what good directing is all about. I'll take a film about real heros making a difference in the world over fictional so-called hero crap that serves no purpose towards humanity.

15:17 To Paris isn't the first movie to use non-professional actors in lead roles. The film has potential with main characters whose backstories are interesting enough, but with some long-winded, pointless scenes, it's not one I would recommend unless you don't mind its flaws.On the other hand--just in time for Memorial Day--Act Of Valor, which features real-life Navy SEALs, is highly recommended.

Very clear why the heathens of the press hated this film, which celebrated bravery, focused on faith, Christian values and friendship. None of which the liberal press values any more.

Not a very 'hollywood' movie, which is refreshing from time to time. This film seems to stick very close to reality, which may seem mundane to some audience members and critics (at least until the event on the train), but I think the movie was very effective in showing who these guys were before being put in an extraordinary situation. This film rings true, and is moving in a refreshingly understated fashion.

Did you know the 3 main actors in the film are the ones who had this actual experience? They aren't experienced actors but how neat to have the actual people play the role. 5 stars for using the real people!

I had chills watching the heroism that was displayed! The Actors did an amazing job being their selves! I would much rather watch "real" natural people telling their story than some hollywood imitator that faced with this situation would most likely not be able to act as these men did! I work for the Veterans Administration as a Nurse and I am so proud of how they saved numerous lives with their selfless bravery!

It was painful to watch.

What made this movie special is that the cast are the actual people involved on the train. The movie takes time to develop as we see the early years of friendships forged and a love of playing warfare in the woods. The complain from critics was the lead on to the action on the train was too long and the action was too short. Well I'm sure in real time it was more accurate then some hour drawn out action, which Hollywood likes to do. I felt the characters were normal people who behaved like the way normal people would, not actors taking emotions over the top like the Hurt Locker and Full Metal Jacket esque. It delivered the story in a low key tone without the nonsense of making characters being more larger than life and actions more than necessary.