MovieChat Forums > The 15:17 to Paris (2018) Discussion > I don't understand the critics on this o...

I don't understand the critics on this one

posted 7 years ago by PrimeMinisterX (8859)
10 replies | jump to latest

As I'm sure many of you have seen, this film is currently sitting at a 20% Rotten Tomatoes score.

For me, the bottom line here is that I thought this was one of the most interesting films that I've seen in a long time.

Knowing that the real-life guys were untrained actors and played themselves in the movie, I said that I would be able to come to terms with the performances as long as I could get C-level performances out of these guys and I felt like I got that. The dude you see in the trailers with the shaved head really is the lead in the movie--he gets the most screentime and apparently he was the one in real life who both initiated the attack against the terrorist and finished the guy--and, while I wouldn't go so far as to call him "pretty good" in terms of his performance I at least feel comfortable in saying that he was "not bad."

I thought his performance felt fairly natural. The other two guys were a bit more wooden, but not to the extent that I really thought it was a problem. The fact that I knew I was watching the actual guys--these were THE guys who did the shit--really made the movie a lot more interesting to me than it otherwise would've been and having now seen the movie I think that Clint made an inspired decision to cast them.

As many reviewers have mentioned, the actual attack on the train is brief. We probably spend 15 to 20 minutes total on the train with the attack comprising just a few of those minutes. The rest of the time on the train is either build up or aftermath.

Clint chooses to start from the ground up, initially exploring these guys' childhood and how they met and how then two of them joined the military. Then it turns into something of a travelogue as we just hang out with these guys and get to know them more as they travel around Europe, and then finally we get the attack on the train.

I'm not sure why it is that the critics decided to attack this one. It may be that there are strong, overt religious and political themes undergirding the story. As we know, most critics tend to lean left, and I can't help but think that some personal bias may be coming into play here. I suppose one needs not specifically be against these things to dislike this film--one could simply be disinterested entirely--but like I said, I found the movie to be a very interesting and ultimately emotional experience.

I enjoyed it and feel bad for the real-life guys who made this movie, gave it their all, and had their story told, only for the film to be ripped apart and talked down to. I'm going to give it an 8/10.

[–] jekporkins (1985) 3 years ago

I just watched it. I thought it was really interesting having the actual guys act instead of actors. They did okay - actually, for people who never acted in their lives they did outstanding.

I wasn't expecting a grand, sweeping opus. I was expecting a smaller film that explored these boys and how they got the balls to be heroes that day. It nailed that point.

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9443) 3 years ago

Thanks for some background on this movie.
I had no idea the characters were played by the actual men who took down the shooter.
I am not sure what I feel about that.
The realness of the movie was very good and distinctive.
The movie had a feel all its own, which was pretty good for the most part.
The direction of the movie was very good. The shots, the action, the scenery, all really well done. The colors were clean and the action was crisp.

One moment of this movie kind of annoyed me.
When they biking through Germany at the bunker where Hitler killed himself.
The character of the guide was super offensive when he broke into "Springtime For Hitler".
Did that really happen, and if so it was way out of context and should have been dropped?
If it didn't happen, it's even weirder to put it into the movie.

They also did not say anything about the man show was shot and saved, as far as if he lived and what his injuries were - as well as the shooter ... who and why and what happened to him.

I'd like to give the movie more, but I think a 7/10 is fair.

Clint seems to always put these scenes of people breaking the rules, and in this case the kids in the beginning, and through school just did not feel right, but it did give background to the movie and now that I know these were the real people it makes a difference.

I am not really anti-religious, but I am skeptical of religion, but I respect religion as well, as most issues are up to the people and not the institution. I thought the religious aspect was a big forced by overall I liked it. It's good to remind ourselves of what our real moral character as a country is supposed to be.