The 15:17 to Paris

I can remember first hearing about this story at the same time as the rest of the world on the news as opposed to seeing pictures of the Miracle on the Hudson in the years following that event. I was disappointed that critics panned “The 15:17 to Paris” but after seeing the show myself, I would hope that it was because of the screenplay problems. I don't recognize the acting as a flaw and the religious angle should never be grounds for a bad film review.

I have seen movies with strong moral themes be rejected by critics before. The opening of "The 15:17 to Paris" has religious themes and I can only hope that the critics understood the desire for the filmmakers to be true to the story. In addition, the movie portrays two mothers who do not accept what the school recommends concerning their children's "bad" behavior. We often see the opposite in the media these days where strangers seem to know what's best for children. While I feel there are times where the education system has the answers, I feel even stronger that parents have the greater responsibility for their children. It was nice to see at least one film in this case with strong, loving parents. No one can say that these mothers made the wrong call. The majority of the teachers in the film really seem too strict with these kids. Disciplining for swearing I can understand but for being a few feet away from class but not in it? I would hope that most teachers in the world are a lot more patient and nurturing than that. Some people are critical of the acting performances in this show but I would argue that you can't be critical of people trying to do something not in their skill sets. Spencer Stone, Alex Skarlatos, Anthony Sadler and the other real life participants who appear in this film can't be looked down upon for not acting very well because they aren't actors. This isn't the first time that the real people have portrayed themselves in a movie. I thought it was very effective in films like "United 93", "World Trade Center" and the aforementioned "Sully". At first, Clint Eastwood cast actors for the main roles but he seems to have changed his mind at some point in the interest of experimentation. I can respect that because I love authenticity. While the three men fell short on their acting, they are playing themselves after all so that makes them qualified in my book.

The true flaw of this movie was the screenplay. A first time screenwriter wrote this film so that probably says a lot. An initial problem was the establishing shot of Spencer, Alex and Anthony riding in the convertible. This was a flaw because there was no similar scene acting as a bookend to conclude the film. With a climax such as this, it was important to have certain plot points during the back-story of the characters that would come to have great importance in the end. A really good example of this kind of storytelling is the non-linear film "Slumdog Millionaire". In other films, such as the ones based on true stories, I have seen quite an effective depiction of how a lifetime of experiences prepare the protagonist for their climatic heroic act. That was not the case with "The 15:17 to Paris". The plot points were there but they were either not subtle enough or too numerous. There were a few moments that had some drama thankfully such as the friends deciding to visit Amsterdam and taking the train to Paris despite the bad criticisms they have been hearing throughout the trip. Sneaking into first class was another plot point that had some gravity attached to it. Overall however, the script did not play out very well. If you're going to do a non-linear film, it must be well organized so that the jumps between different points in time have a purpose. There was no reason for the non-linear narrative structure of "The 15:17 to Paris". The opening shots of the would-be terrorist aren't the problem; it is the other few scenes on the train showing up throughout the back-story. There weren't enough to balance out the plot. Eastwood has done a lot of non-linear films in the past so you would think that he could identify a script with problems. The dialogue was also a problem. I even tried to imagine the same scene played out by traditional actors and I still felt like the dialogue could have been better.

To conclude with some miscellaneous acknowledgments, it was so cool to see Jaleel White as the sole teacher who was portrayed in a good light. Any of the elderly actors in this movie were also very good. In addition to the three main heroes, other heroes of that day portray themselves including Chris Norman, Mark Moogalian (the shooting victim) and his wife Isabelle. I also like how the young Spencer has a "Letters from Iwo Jima" poster on his bedroom wall. Speaking of Spencer Stone, he is portrayed in this movie with a natural instinct not to hide. One source has stated that the chances were 1000 to 1 for the terrorist's weapon to jam as it did. However, Alex Skarlatos feels that the gunman was not trained in working these firearms and neither weapon was ready to fire. Whatever the case, because Spencer isn't a man to hide, he was in the right place to do something great. He is the main character because he was the first to act on the train. That is not to undermine what Anthony and Alex did because Spencer was injured himself and needed help. The story is a great one but "The 15:17 to Paris" is far from perfect. We can't blame the themes or acting but the screenplay should have been better.

3 out of 5 Stars