>
The 15:17 to Paris pays clumsily well-intentioned tribute to an act of heroism, but by casting the real-life individuals involved, director Clint Eastwood fatally derails his own efforts. Read critic reviews
What to know
You might also like
See More
Exodus: Gods and Kings
Ben-Hur
The Monuments Men
Point Break
Glass
Where to watch The 15:17 to Paris
Rent The 15:17 to Paris on Amazon Prime Video, Apple TV, Vudu, or buy it on Amazon Prime Video, Apple TV, Vudu.
Rate And Review
-
What did you think of the movie? (optional)
You're almost there! Just confirm how you got your ticket.
You're almost there! Just confirm how you got your ticket.
What did you think of the movie? (optional)
How did you buy your ticket?
-
Fandango
-
AMCTheatres.com or AMC AppNew
-
Cinemark Coming Soon
We won’t be able to verify your ticket today, but it’s great to know for the future.
-
Regal Coming Soon
We won’t be able to verify your ticket today, but it’s great to know for the future.
-
Theater box office or somewhere else
The 15:17 to Paris videos
The 15:17 to Paris: B-Roll
The 15:17 to Paris: Trailer 1
The 15:17 to Paris Photos
Movie Info
On Aug. 21, 2015, the world watches in stunned silence as the media reports a thwarted terrorist attack on a train that's bound for Paris -- an attempt prevented by three young Americans traveling together through Europe. The heroic and courageous actions of Anthony Sadler, Alek Skarlatos and Spencer Stone help to save the lives of more than 500 passengers on board.
-
Rating: PG-13 (Drug References|Bloody Images|Language|Some Suggestive Material|Violence)
-
Genre: Mystery & thriller, Drama
-
Original Language: English
-
Director: Clint Eastwood
-
Producer: Clint Eastwood, Tim Moore, Kristina Rivera, Jessica Meier
-
Writer: Dorothy Blyskal
-
Release Date (Theaters): wide
-
Release Date (Streaming):
-
Box Office (Gross USA): $36.2M
-
Runtime:
-
Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures
-
Production Co: Warner Bros. Pictures, Malpaso Productions, Village Roadshow Pictures
-
Sound Mix: Dolby Atmos
-
Aspect Ratio: Scope (2.35:1)
Cast & Crew
News & Interviews for The 15:17 to Paris
Critic Reviews for The 15:17 to Paris
Audience Reviews for The 15:17 to Paris
-
A terrible film (if it can be called that) by Clint Eastwood, The 15:17 to Paris tells the real life story of a thwarted 2015 terrorist attack. More of a re-enactment than a film, it follows the lives of three best friends (played by the actual people) leading up to a European vacation in which they encounter an Islamic terrorist intent on carrying out a mass shooting aboard a train to Paris. The storytelling is really piss-poor; there's no real plot, just random episodes of three guy's lives, and it's pretty clear that they don't have much acting talent. The 15:17 to Paris is a poorly made film that fails to find a compelling story behind this extraordinary event of heroism and bravery.
-
A interesting touch casting the real life heroes in this docu-drama, well written and photographed. Eastwood does a capable job but not his best by any stretch. Worth watching! 06-14-2018
-
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-
nathan z Super Reviewer -
based on true events, and starring the actual people involved. this tale of heroism in the face of terrorism is better than you may think, thanks to the direction of clint eastwood, who doesn't bore us with the usual cliches. i enjoyed it.
Verified