The 15:17 To Paris (dir. Clint Eastwood)

A surprising and audible wave of boredom was clearly evident throughout Clint Eastwood's "The 15:17 to Paris"; an almost contemptible air of mundanity not regularly associated with Eastwood's particular brand of politically-charged cinema. From the man behind "American Sniper" and more recently "Sully", this docudrama - which uses the real life heroes Anthony Sadler, Spencer Stone and Alek Skarlatos to portray themselves- is an exhausting and uncompromising examination of the unarguable heroism of the three warriors, but with little pay-off.

It's unclear whether the experienced director chose to portray the heroes with their real life selves in order to pay homage to the men, or as an experimental plot device. It's a risky move, and doubtless any other director would have been able to get the go-ahead for from the studio heads over at Warner Brothers.

But here, for all the good intentions on display, the most important aspect of the film should always be the storytelling. Though it's true that this portrait of impressive bravery by three men who - at the right place in the right time- acted in the face of adversity and saved nearly 300 lives is noble in it's scope, the finished product is remarkably un-cinematic in relation to both its narrative and visual aesthetics. Though it is demonstrably a fact that these men should be saluted for their bravery (which should never been disputed) and though the film should be congratulated for never flirting with the contrary, it's the decision of the film-making team, including first-time screenwriter Dorothy Blyskal (who adapted from the book 15:17 Paris co-written by the three men and Jeffery E.Stern) , to over-contextualize the heroes' lives that ultimately draws the film into the realms of the forgettable.

Beginning with a close-up of the would be assailant boarding the train, our story skips back a few years and shifts it's focus to our vigilante mercenaries. It becomes a running motif in Eastwood's drama to continuously tease the impending train attack, as if to remind you of what you actually paid your money to come and see. Our three heroes first meet when young kids, growing up in Sacramento, California in the early 21st century. Alek and Spencer are the two unruly junior-high students at a Christian school. Their doting mothers, played by Judy Greer and Jenna Fisher respectively, attempt to raise their boys in the eyes of God and in direct contempt to their teachers, who believe the boys are underachieving to the point of a medicinal intervention. A chance meeting at the principle's office sees them meeting fellow reprobate Anthony, a young black kid with equal amounts of swagger and back-talk. Their principal dutifully reminds Alek and Spencer about Anthony; "Don't hang around with him, he'll get you in trouble!". But of course they don't listen, and their "Stand By Me"-esque set pieces do little to service the plot other than remind you of their lifelong friendship, seemingly based on their mutual admiration of firearms and cracking wise.

Perhaps the most important timeframe of a film's construction is the first twenty minutes, a period of time where the audience is most engaged - here, Eastwood presents the early moments of the film, where our young trio meet for the first time with a tremendous amount of portent - but strangely these exchanges, although played for laughs, are largely devoid of pathos and their tone is somewhere closer to a Hallmark movie than a big-screen adaptation. It's clear the message that Eastwood and his writing partner are trying to remind us of the three men's lifelong bond, and how ordinary people from humble beginnings can do extraordinary things. But this all gets lost in the milieu - as the uninspiring acting are the least of the problems on show here - it' the ideals of faith, patriotism and violence, which are all posed as necessities for masculinity here which seem misguided and rushed in their execution- It's an unusually biased approached to the subject matter from the man who argued for both sides of a war in "Flags for our Fathers" and "Letters from Iwo Jima."

As the boys get older, their respective backstories don’t exactly increase in profundity. As you patiently wait for the de-facto incident, Spencer now works at Jamba Juice, unaware of his potential to make a change in the world. His close ally Alex has enlisted in the Oregon Army National guard, something he envisaged he would do from an early age. As for Anthony, his life seems exist merely as a civilian (though the film boasts 3 US Airmen, Sadler never joined the military - he was a student at California State), and as the sympathetic ear to our lead dynasty. When Spencer gets the idea to enlist, it's Anthony who's there to give him the tough love he needs - "It's not that we don't think you can do it, it's that you won't". Eastwood then paints the picture of a soldier in training to suffice the narrative, as Stone attempts to get in shape and finally try hard at something in his life - trying his hand at the United States Air Force. HIs no-nonsense approach to fighting for his country are some of the more broader moments of comedy, including one moment which has resonance retrospectively during a false-alarm of an active shooter, where instructed to remain under his desk, Stone stands by the door, willing and ready to do battle, armed with a pen. His response; "I didn't want my family to think I died hiding under a table".

In retrospect these elements of the drama - unfortunately short lived, where our hero is acclimating himself to a life in the military ( an existence of strict obedience and learning how to stitch with impeccable accuracy) are perhaps the most entertaining. But then the film switches - after the three men all agree to "back-back across Europe" for the summer: Alek meets up with a pen-pal in Germany and has one of the most awkwardly bizarre conversations about his fathers legacy, whilst Spencer and Anthony head to Rome.

Whilst in Italy for, it's here where the drama forgets you're watching; almost becoming a Facebook Live examination of their travels. They fill their days with selfie-sticks and buying gelato, Eastwood's rushed drama (filming began as early as 6 months ago) lays in it's decision to let the men frolic around the popular tourist attractions in Europe, taking pictures on their camera phones and talking to attractive locals, and expect the audience to find it necessary to their characterization. Imagine your next door neighbor, with whom you've only exalted the meager of social interactions, wanted to show you their "holiday video" from their trip to Europe last summer - it's like that, bereft of any entertaining asides and dripped in nostalgic arrogance.

These sequences are ham-fisted into the narrative and appear to only interest the film-making team and the three men, as Eastwood opts for a documentary approach to the mens lives instead of dissecting the intricacies of their characters. The middle third of Eastwood’s drama is anything but cinematic, a staggering misstep from the experienced and usually unfussy director. Notoriously vigilant when filming to keep it the one take, his methodical stance behind the directors chair here appears to have taken a momentary lapse, as large instances of the film appear to have no direction behind them whatsoever.

Before long, after the travelogue has taken us from the Vatican, to the Colosseum and the Trevi fountain, our group of do-gooders have exhausted their fun, they meet up in the Netherlands for a night of debauchery, but with the burning question still on everyone's lips - shall we go to Paris? Of course we know they do, and as they board the eponymous 15:17 to Paris service from Amsterdam, there are gentle asides to their chivalry in the mould of helping an elderly English man onto the train, to flirting with the food service hostess. Finally, the taut thriller takes off - and it's clear during the tense moments where our heroes, along with a British passenger and another French one, subdued the terrorist are indeed successful in it's representation of the chaos that went down on the train.

It’s not as easy to just say that the story would better suit a documentary, because who’s to say that another director would be able to find profundity and nuance with a hour-long talking heads production. There’s clearly an admiration for the bravery and the sacrifice of the men - and at least Eastwood's drama perpetuates the truth that there's absolutely no question that the trio are nothing more than conquering heroes. But better films have taken a similar approach in reenacting moments of heroism - most recently Paul Greengrass' two efforts - United 93 and Captain Phillips, which in comparison are light years ahead in both emotional profundity and execution, and service their respective stories in a more consistent light.

Rating 2/5