The 15:17 to Paris (Clint Eastwood, February 9, 2018) Movie • Page 2

It’s easily one of his few low points.

Letters From Iwo Jima, The Unforgiven, and Gran Torino would be my top 3. Depending on the day I might replace Gran with Sully.

 

My top 5 are
Unforgiven
Mystic River
Breezy
Million Dollar Baby
Gran Torino

I think Bridges of Madison County would sneak in there on rewatch though.

 

“American Sniper” does a good job of capturing PTSD and an addiction to war. Unfortunately, it was co-opted by Chris Kyle worshippers that drape their trucks in Punisher logos.

 

This is having very limited screenings for critics. Not the best sign.

 

I was worried the other day when I checked Rotten Tomatoes and didn’t see a score. And I haven’t seen a review on any of the sites I frequent.

 

I happened to see the trailer for this a bunch of times before movies during the holidays and I always figured Heartland America would eat this up big time.

 

David Jenkins loved it The 15:17 to Paris ★★★★ review

 

I watched American Sniper yesterday, which I thought was fine. It's easily my least favorite work Eastwood has made in the 21st century though (of the 8/14 I've seen, obviously). I found the battle scenes to be too much and quite repetitive, which may have been the intention in depicting the real cyclical nature of war. However, the "home" scenes are pretty incredible. In these scenes, the film almost operates as a spiritual sequel to Flags of our Fathers, diving into the veteran's psyche. It's another in a long line of Eastwood's films that looks to define heroism, what it means to be a hero, and the weight that comes along with that title. Like I said, one of my less favorite Eastwood films, but it's interesting piece in his body of work nonetheless.

 

anxiously awaiting Neil Bahadur's take

 

Saw this a couple hours ago and just knocked out a few hundred words on it because I felt inspired and haven’t really said much on Eastwood’s work before. I’ll post that in here later, once I put together some closing thought.

For now, I thought this was fantastic. Easily my favorite Eastwood film since Gran Torino. It’s such an oddball film, it’s pretty much formless in terms of any plot. Obviously Eastwood is again grappling with ideas of heroism, what makes a hero, and what being a hero means.

 

Can’t wait to read it!

You have me hyped to see this now

 

is it on the box?

 

It will be ya.

 

I was gonna send this to the site/blog I write for, but idk if they would really "get" it. Not that the writing or ideas are complex or anything, but (at risk of dragging them), the site's viewpoint is kind of narrow and I mostly use my position there to push Canadian/Toronto cinema culture. So yeah, here's what I wrote. Ended up pumping out nearly 700 words on this. It may be kinda rough, most of it came kinda stream of conscious in like a 20 min sitting. I'm really curious to hear what other people think as they see it. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people don't like it as much or even hate it, but I'm eager to regardless!!

Clint Eastwood has built a career on depicting and deconstructing the notion of heroism. Through his decades in front of and behind the camera, the film makers has constantly grappled with what makes a hero, the ideas behind heroism, and, by association, the idea of iconography. Because the bits of patriotism in his films (and, more prominently, his right wing political alignment), Eastwood has become one of the most criminally misunderstood American directors over the last decade. While his films deal with topics generally associated with patriotism and heroism. But upon any critical evaluation, it becomes increasingly clear the level at which Eastwood is presenting these ideas through a condemnatory lens.

The 15:17 to Paris marks the latest in Eastwood's late career obsession with heroism and iconography. By casting the real life people from the incident at hand, The 15:17 to Paris will again incur claims of overt patriotism. But Eastwood is barely interested largely uninterested in America with his latest film. While the early portion of the film deals closely with the American schooling system, religion, and military, Eastwood is openly finding faults within these institutions, once again commenting on the way American's systems often fail their people.

The bulk of The 15:17 to Paris is concerned with the simple pleasures of life, both capturing and depicting them. Eschewing any narrative structure, The 15:!7 to Paris primarily seems like an excuse for Eastwood and cinematographer Tom Stern to capture the beauty of Europe. The films spends most of its time following our characters as they travel their way through Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands, taking in the simple pleasures of a good meal or capturing pictures and uploading them online. It's in these freewheeling, formless scenes that Eastwood presents himself as a film maker free of restrictions; this is not a man interested in appeasing any crowd, but rather using his liberty to explore film making in his own way. Here is where we begin to see Eastwood as experimentalist.

None of this is to imply that Eastwood has no interest in the incident at hand. Although the film spends most of its time basking in the joys of life, once Eastwood brings the viewers onto the titular train, the film makes a marked shift. The attack is presented as a rapid event, mimicking the intensity of the true situation. The film oozes with a raw ferocity that has typically been absent from the later Eastwood works, getting to the core brutality of the event at hand. It's as queasy as it is quick, a relentless collection of claustrophobic violence and pain.

As in American Sniper, Eastwood ends The 15:17 to Paris with real life footage of our principal characters. Here Eastwood cuts the footage of the heroes being awarded medals with footage of their fictionalized families. With this scene, it becomes clear why Eastwood cast the real life men from the situation in their fictionalized roles. It was not for accuracy, but rather for authenticity. A few comparisons have been made between Eastwood's use of real people and Abbas Kiarostami's Close-Up. Though the films bare little in common otherwise, their quest for authenticity links them in a spiritual sense.

Throughout his last 47 years as a film maker, Eastwood has often been on the quest for what makes a hero. How does one reach that point? What is the responsibility of a hero? Increasingly the term hero has been linked with the term icon, a label Eastwood himself is clearly aligned with. This all remains as pertinent as ever in The 15:17 to Paris, but we also see Eastwood's interests as a film maker take a shift. The quest for authenticity becomes increasingly relevant by casting the real life subjects of the film. Above all, it's the shift to a shapeless film, one nearly devoid of plot, that proves Eastwood is still evolving and growing as a film maker. As a result, Eastwood has delivered his most vigorous film in a decade.

 

I could have watched an entire movie about Jenna Fischer and Judy Greer yelling at authority figures, rude for Judy Greer and Tony Hale to be in a movie together and not have any scenes together
It's impressive that with this and Sully he was able to make movies out of split second events
I didn't connect with the religious and patriotic aspects, it's super obvious that Clint loves war a lot more than I do
I thought having Alek, Tony, and Spencer play themselves wound up working really well

 

This was bad. Really bad. I don’t blame the real life dudes, they’re not professional actors.

 

This was absolutely terrible. The scenes in Europe were excruciating.

 

Aaaaaaah, the best part!

 

qft

 

This is an absolutely incredible piece of writing on the film Review: The 15:17 To Paris a consummate Clint Eastwood film

 

This was fucking horrible. (And Eastwood is a pretty awful human. Don’t buy this if you force yourself to watch it.)

 

I generally enjoy Eastwood’s stuff. But this is a stay-away.

 

More like “stay away” from the negative reviews!

 

This movie is one of the worst I've seen in years.

 

What a fascinating thread