There can be compelling reasons for using the actual participants of an event to tell their own stories. And their can be compelling reasons against it. It is always a gamble. When you are dealing with tactical movements and language, like in the film Navy Seals, the idea can add credibility to a film. For a biography that is not a documentary, there is always a danger that you are going to lose some impact in the dialogue. In The 15:17 Tto Paris it felt like some impact was lost in the dialogue.
On August 21, 2015, three friends were aboard the 15:17 train from Amsterdam to Paris when a terrorist attack happened on the train. Spencer Stone, Alek Scarlatos and Anthony Sadler were on a backpacking holiday in Europe. Spencer was on leave from the Air Force and Scarlatos from the Army when they asked their childhood friend Anthony to join them on a European vacation. The subsequent attack, thwarted by the young men, made international news. It was an event that lasted minutes. So how does one take a five minute ordeal and create a one hour and 34 minute feature film out of it?
I am a huge fan of Clint Eastwood. And I am glad he made this film. I am also glad he used the real heroes in his depiction. This film is a sweetheart kiss to average kids who do extraordinary things. But stretching this film to feature length felt a bit of a stretch. Eastwood accomplishes this by providing back story on how the kids were childhood friends, the mischievous trouble they encountered and the decisions they made that brought the three of them together on the train. We spend a bit of time in Italy where Stone and Sadler meet up before heading to Germany to join Scarlatos, who is visiting his girlfriend. Stone muses with Sadler about being propelled toward great things during their vacation, which felt like it was genuine and not dialogue created for effect. The story felt authentic, but was just a little bit slow and thin as well.
This is a hard film for me to review. I have objective opinions about it as well as subjective opinions. This is red meat for the "Murica" crowd. That's me. I am a veteran and I love my country. It pleases me that it was a couple of young American soldiers who not only disarmed a terrorist, but also saved the life of another American who fought back and nearly died from his wounds. It's not that I think Americans are superior. I certainly believe in American exceptionalism. We are largely wired differently. Particularly military, veterans and law enforcement in the United States. We are guarded. We game plan disaster before it happens. We contemplate how we would react when there is nothing compelling a reaction. Athletes often talk about how visualizing the mechanics of their win propels them to greatness. This is the same concept. When faced with a life-and-death situation, you don't have time to contemplate these things. It is the mind that has prepared for them that can react with opposition. That is the main theme of this story that resonated with me.
While I enjoyed the thematic elements of The 15:17 to Paris the story as a whole felt a bit thin. I enjoyed the story, but the back story was only moderately interesting. Eastwood attempted to assist the pacing by interspersing elements of the train incident throughout the story so viewers were reminded that they are being propelled towards a climax. That helped. However, I could have used a bit more substance in the film. Eastwood did interject some failure into the film to show adversity and to add dimension to the heroes so we didn't view them as guys who succeeded at everything. That aspect worked. I'm just not sure there was enough here to make a feature length film. Having said that, knowing everything I know now, I would still go back and see this at the theater.
The 15:17 to Paris is rated PG-13. The film has some pretty intense violence at the end. I actually forgot that Spencer Stone received substantial injuries in the altercation. There was another American on this train whose heroism helped slow the terrorist down. Mark Moogalian. Moogalian's heroism is often overlooked in this story. He was shot in the neck and would have died if Stone had not kept pressure on his wound until they arrived at the next train station. Eastwood added quite a bit of realism to that scene, easily earning this film the rating it received. The film should be fine for all ages. The graphic violence and a bit of drinking are not that uncommon in today's media. The gore is only slightly worse than what you would see on television.
The 15:17 to Paris is a flawed film. But it is not fatally flawed. Looking at IMDb, you would think this film was horrible. With a 5.4 rating, it is not one I would probably choose to see at the theater. Or at all for that matter. This film is far better than IMDb suggests. I return to my objective/subjective context for this film. If you are a red-blooded American who loves your country, you will view this as a 7 or 7.5 movie. If you are not, you would probably dip down to 5 or below. This is a film about American exceptionalism. It is a film about rising above one's station in life. It is a film about overcoming adversity. The content is thin, the dialogue delivered by real people not actors (diluting some of the drama), and it probably doesn't reach the depth of a feature-length film. But I liked it. It was a buddy film. It was a sweetheart kiss to the military. And it honors some American heroes. If you bleed red white and blue, you will enjoy this film enough to see it at the theater. If not, skip it.