Review of The 15:17 to Paris (2018) by Zach D — 22 Feb 2018

The 15:17 to Paris.

Usually in a film class they have you watch movies for educational purposes such as Star Wars or Blade Runner and while those are very good movies to learn from in a sense of what to do, something a lot of classes don't do is have you watch bad films for what not to do. In order to truly become a professional you need to have knowledge of both good and bad, and that's where 15:17 Paris comes in (for my ease of writing I will refer to it as 1517). In my opinion this is a prime example of a movie that sounds good until you watch it. Clint Eastwood you poor bastard. First I'd like to talk about the good in this film since that'll go much faster than the bad and will also leave anyone who reads this review dreading this movie when they walk past it sitting on the shelves at Target or something. I can honestly say the acting wasn't terrible but rather amateur and I say that in a good way. The "actors" who play the hero's in this true story are actually the real people who lived this event (I'll get into that more as I completely annihilate this movie). This means that everything that happens from the main event of the terrorist being thwarted to the simple jokes they spit out. Thats all the good I can really say about this other than it's pretty which me even saying that is a little much. And now for the reason I'm writing this review, to simply be a dick and tear up everybody who was involved with this (keep in mind the budget for this movie was $30 million and the movie made about $3.7 million. A fucking tenth of what they spent.). First I'd like to address the man, the myth, the cuck himself, Clint mothafuckin Eastwood. Where did this go wrong. The directed American Sniper, Dirty Harry, and even Joe Kidd. All cult classics that I've only seen one of. Clint has managed to make one of the most boring movies I've ever had the luxury of sitting through. This just might mark the fall of one on the most classic directors. I can honestly say literally every single choice made in this movie was probably the worst decision they could've possibly made. And now I go back to the piss poor decision of hiring the real men to play themselves. As I said their acting wasn't terrible but that's not to say that I really was not at all good to the highest degree. They could not convey emotion. There was a scene where the main character was arguing with his mother and his face was completely straight the entire time. He was yelling but his mouth was straighter than my sexuality. It was fucking terrible to watch. These men had been through hell in their lives and now are being disgraced by the mighty Universal Studios. Honestly can Disney just buy them already. All their doing is wasting their money I.e. their profit being a tenth of their spendings. Next I'd like to rant about the writing. How the hell do you fuck up writing a true story? About half way through they introduce a cute little Asian chick who pretty much just walks around with the main guys while they're backpacking through Europe. The play her off like she and the main guy (notice I keep calling him the main guy because even if I cared enough to I can't remember his name) so they play it off like they're going to fall in love or something. And in the very next scene after she's introduced SHES GONE. They don't explain it or even reference her again she's just straight up gone. She was probably the only like able person in this movie and she literally just disappears. Even the fucking fairy that she was couldn't save this movie. To say the least her performance reminded me of the victim in a prank video who saw the camera before it even started. She's trying to go with it because it seemed like these guys worked hard on this prank but it's such crap because the actors aren't even actors. Next I'd like talk about the structure of a film. A movie is typically comprised of 3 or 5 acts. A beginning, a middle, and an end. But this movie had the bright idea of beginning the story with the terrorist walking into the train and then cutting back to our main characters childhoods. Now this doesn't sound bad. It could actually be a little interesting. It could prolong the tragedy by cutting back and forth between the innocence and bold nature of our hero's and the tragedy of what's to come until that all culminate into one at the end. The thing about doing that is a little thing called consistency. Say it with me Clint "Consistency". By this I mean that some times it'll cut to the terrorist for about 10 seconds to show what's to come and just when it's getting interesting they'll cut back to cinemas most boring characters and stay in them for an undisclosed amount of time. Sometimes it's 10 minutes other times it's more like 40 minutes. To do this right you'd need to cut back and forth on a consistent basis make both sides interesting. One movie that did this very was Reservoir Dogs. The backwards storytelling presented in that was masterful. One minute there's a nice conversation going on and by the time the camera cuts there could be a main character bleeding out in the back of a car. That's interesting storytelling. But that doesn't work in 1517 because 1. Its a true story and 2. The only interesting thing about the movie takes up about 10 minutes of the 1 1/2 hour runtime. Why they chose to tell a linear story backwards I don't know but I'm gonna put it up to Clint Eastwood being fucking 87. Ladies and gentlemen, at the time of me finishing up writing this review I have learned some terrible news. When I started this review it was approximately 10:15 am. As of right now it is 6:28 pm and I have learned that not only was Clint Eastwood involved with this production but also freakin WARNER BROS. This explains so much yet so little about why this movie is so terrible. Also at the time of me finishing this review I'm currently watching my favorite movie of all time and am no longer in the mood to write this review and would rather not tarnish the good name of Inglourious Basterds with this porn level production of a cinematic piece. Adieu.