Such a frustrating disappointment

Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

During the time I spent watching The 15:17 to Paris, my brain was trying to come to grips with the fact that this is a film made by the one and only Clint Eastwood.How could the man responsible for Million Dollar Baby, Mystic River, Unforgiven, Gran Torino , Changeling and even to a lesser extent films like Sully and A Perfect World be the man that directed this?So bad is Paris that's hard to even conjure up the right words to describe its ineptitude as a feature film and it's hard to begin to even imagine how a screen legend like Eastwood thought that this re-telling of a real life terrorist incident on the French railway in 2015 was a good idea.To be honest, despite the act of bravery that this terrorist act brought forward in the form of American friends Anthony Sadler, Alek Skarlatos and Spencer Stone stopping an armed gunman from enacting a likely bloody act of carnage, the story of this at the time world renowned incident wasn't exactly crying out for a feature length experience, which at the very core, is a large part of why Paris is such a non-event as a viewing exercise.With the actual key incident at the heart of Paris over and done with in a few, largely thrill-free minutes, a large chunk of screen time is set aside by Eastwood to establish these three friends to provide background to their lauded act, but with downright atrocious script work by Dorothy Blyskal (honestly Paris features one of the worst scripts for a big-budget film in recent memory) and Eastwood's lack of emotion or engagement to the material makes this 90 minute film feel like a torturous and laborious nightmare.Making matters even worse is the fact that bewilderingly Eastwood cast the three real life heroes to play themselves and these non-professional actors are about as good as you'd expect them to be (e.g.; terrible) meaning that as our heroes go about their thrilling Europe holidays in the lead up to their heroic showdown, we are treated to some student film like acting skills, that when combined with Blyskal's trite dialogue, make for something spectacular in its awfulness.How anyone involved in the making of this film couldn't of seen the train wreck happening before their very eyes is a question worth asking but at the end of the day, blame must sadly lay at the feet of Mr. Eastwood himself.Final Say - The 15:17 to Paris is a failure of epic proportions. Quite possibly the worst film of Eastwood's 60 plus years involved in the industry, this is a feature without a redeemable quality and is saved from 0 star humiliation purely by the fact one feels sorry for the real life heroes who had to be a part of it.½ a jammed AK-47 out of 5

The 15:17 to Paris (2018): The Star-turned-Director Clint Eastwood has memorable films in his career with Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby, American Sniper and Sully. He was after real-life hero tales continuously and this year he came with an even lesser known Thalys Train Attack. Surprisingly, Eastwood did a rare feat, he's cast the real men involved in the events the film depicts as themselves. So how did it go?Plot: In the early evening of August 21, 2015, the world watched in stunned silence as the media reported a thwarted terrorist attack on Thalys train #9364 bound for Paris--an attempt prevented by three courageous young Americans traveling through Europe. The film follows the course of the friends' lives, from the struggles of childhood through finding their footing in life, to the series of unlikely events leading up to the attack. Throughout the harrowing ordeal, their friendship never wavers, making it their greatest weapon and allowing them to save the lives of the more than 500 passengers on board.My Review:If you watch this film expecting thrilling hostage scenes in train and inspiring heroic acts, you will disappoint as hell. The 15:17 to Paris is one of the most aimlessly made biographical drama film. As far as films on terrorism go, there's not much action to be seen here. The entire train attack lasts hardly more than 15 minutes.This is no action film and not drama too.I think the script was written by the actors/real life people as it mostly focuses on uninteresting aspects of their life. Their travels, discussions and acts all looks like a Holiday videos. How did they even think that we are interested in watching their lives when almost nothing happens? May be! That is the point. MAy be Eastwood tried to prove that the most boring lives could also turn heroic but No..That didn't got conveyed to me while watching it.All three real life heroes did good even when this is their first time. Eastwood succeeded in bringing out performances from them. And that's the only place Eastwood succeeded. Even the train sequence is blandly shot.]My rating 5.25/10

I've watched tens of thousands of movies and TV for 50+ years. I know when the acting is bad, the writing is bad or when the different elements don't live up to a standard. When I came into this movie, I expected an action adventure drama cookie cutter film. What I saw was an above average fictionalized documentary style movie and it seemed too real in dialog. As things progressed, I saw a predictable storyline leading to what the film's title made you expect. (mediocre) The actors seemed to be exactly playing the parts they were given and the events seemed to play out the way reality plays out. (good) As the aftermath was playing, I had to know if it was a true story because it seemed so. Some of the film seemed like actual footage and it might actually have been in some cases. Then I saw Clint's involvement and was intrigued. I then watched his "making of" and realized what was done. I was so impressed with the handling of Clint's direction of real for acting not only for the main actors but what seemed to be background players, bystanders and victims that I have no idea who is an actor in the film and who is a real person. Obviously they can't film back in time, so there were actors for that, but who knows? Because of this reality factor, even bad acting can be forgivable. When you go to a bar and order a beer and flirt with the bartender, are you a bad actor? or a bad writer because of what you say? or a bad director because of what you intend? If you don't like this movie for any of a dozen reasons, I say you are a bad reviewer because you are a cynical witness. You weren't there at the real event, so you cannot be a critic to simulated real life. I've had real life events that felt like this. And I acted badly, but had no witnesses and didn't die.

Wow, this movie was such a let down. I had high hopes, but did not materialize.