15:17 Pariisiin

Come on, surely no one was expecting a ninety-minute film that would all take place on a train. They would have to develop the storyline of each passenger, and that already sounds rather odd on its own. I personally expected a film that would highlight the lives of these three exceptional heroes who, in a split second, made the right decision and prevented a looming catastrophe. I enjoyed their friendship from Catholic school, and later their trip through Europe. Of course, don't expect anything groundbreaking, it has its flaws, and at times it can be a bit dull, but as the audience realizes what is about to unfold, the tension only increases. And the ending certainly delivered, that scene with the disarmament was truly powerful. I admire Clint Eastwood, who is nearly 88 years old is and still able to give directions from the director’s chair on what should be done and how. I see that as a display of life’s vitality combined with an inexhaustible reserve of energy that he could easily share. And I still can’t fathom why no one has thought of casting the real-life participants in the lead roles until now (if we’re talking about films based on true events)? That kind of fresh idea was missing in cinema. The ending might be slightly over the top, but let’s be honest, don’t these guys deserve it? I give it 73%. (22.05.2018)

I wonder if all the critics of “American patriotism" who scold this film would be shouting so much if the main protagonists weren't Americans, but maybe Italians or Poles. I think not. Clint Eastwood doesn't give a damn where these guys are from - he was interested in their ordinary heroics and where, in a simple man, the courage to “just do something" comes from. Rather than glorious, I think he wanted to make a motivating film, and he did. Eastwood then showed his own courage when he cast the three guys whose story he is telling in the main roles, and along with an army of various acting coaches, he made it look natural in front of the camera. He did a great job of it. Their ordinary childhood and quite common worries with their choice of profession and a trip around Europe contrast quite sharply with that unhinged horror on the train, which Eastwood filmed with his typical style of a cold observer. (14.07.2019)

A relaxed, laid-back road movie through Europe combined with an attempt to faithfully recreate a foiled terrorist attack in France equals a slight dud. There’s none of Eastwood's excellent playwriting and character refinement. He borrowed real actors, but the outcome backfired. Too much conversation, too little attack, including completely incomprehensible time jumps in the script. Out of respect for the material and for the guys who put a similarly high level of commitment into acting as they did into saving lives in the real world. (18.05.2018)

In my opinion, if Eastwood had opted for a feature-length documentary, this would be a hit. This chosen structure is somehow lagging behind, yet I would not reject The 15:17 to Paris in any way; Eastwood’s direction is very apt, and the movie is pleasant even in the scenes which focus too heavily on introducing the characters and their subsequent ramble over Europe. That critical scene everyone is waiting for happens without any bigger gradation and ends up extremely quickly, so I understand many viewers get frustrated. I am not against the casting of real people; I would say it was a healthy choice and the scene was globally well handled by the guys. As for that idealised American patriotism, Clint always manages to wrap it with decency, so that it doesn’t exude throughout the movie—unlike the fluttering American flag at the end of Saving Private Ryan which, doubled with John Williams’ grandiloquent composition, makes for a far worse pathos. (12.06.2020)