Posted on 02/10/2018 10:02:44 AM PST by Kaslin
When Clint Eastwood’s 2016 drama Sully arrived in theaters, many people thought they knew the story of Captain Chesley Sullenberger. They thought they knew what happened after the heroic pilot safely landed his malfunctioning plane on the Hudson River in 2009. The film showed otherwise. It offered a revealing look back at the media frenzy and investigation that ensued after that January day.
15:17 to Paris, Eastwood’s latest feature, tells a more traditional story.
The new drama stars three real-life heroes who helped prevent a terrorist attack on a Paris-bound train in 2015. Alek Skarlatos, Anthony Sadler and Spencer Stone play themselves here. The three men were travelling through Europe when they prevented a terrorist from killing hundreds of people.
Early on, the film flashes back to when the boys originally became friends in elementary school. There are scenes showing the youthful Alek and Spencer (played at this age by Bryce Gheisar and William Jennings) befriending the young Anthony (Paul-Mikél Williams). There are also scenes showing them at home and outside playing with toy guns.
These scenes are meant to establish their friendship and their youthful indiscretions they never truly come together to show who these boys really were. When one of the friends moves away, questions about them staying in touch are simply left unanswered.
Instead of answering some of the questions it poses, the screenplay by Dorothy Blyskal (adapted from the book by Skarlatos, Sadler and Spencer) simply rushes forward. There are multiple scenes (such as a discussion about ADD) that seem to suggest certain things but those concepts are never fully explored. Some of these early scenes work independently but never come together.
As the story unfolds, the adult characters appear and these scenes work a bit better in establishing their characters although Anthony isn’t as fully appreciated as the other two men. Alek joins the National Guard, where he’s stationed in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, Spencer loses weight and joins the Air Force (eventually becoming a Staff Sergeant) while still longing for something more.
Eastwood’s decision to cast the three heroes was a questionable one (originally, he was planning to hire actors) although the idea was a commendable one. The three actors show potential (especially Alek, who previously competed on Dancing with the Stars). Unfortunately though, there are times when the acting does feel very stilted and forced. However, some of these issues stem from a script that lacks the depth that really would’ve made these characters stand out.
For instance, a scene showing the men interacting with a tour guide who argues that Americans take too much credit for positive events in history feels like overzealous foreshadowing rather than natural storytelling. The actors are stuck in a scene that lacks no real development or importance.
A scene showing Anthony and Spencer talking about the future works a lot better. “Life is just pushing us towards something,” Spencer says in one of the film’s quieter and most impactful scenes.
The undeniably best scene comes late in the film and shows the dramatic events on the train unfold. It’s here where the heart of the story is and both the actors and Eastwood do a great job in maintaining the necessary intensity. Aside from the three heroes, several of the people who were on the train that day (including the man who was shot and some of the officers who arrived) are portrayed by the real people, which enhances the sequence’s authenticity. It’s scenes like this that really stand out in a movie where so many threads are unexplored.
It’s exciting that these heroes are being celebrated cinematically (In fact, I included this trio on a list of real-life heroes whose stories should be brought to the big screen) and the film works well enough for what it is. It just could’ve been much better.
Ah, yes. To Hell and Back, I saw that one in '55; and it made a positive impression on little 7 yr old moi.
Some of the WW II films made in the 50s might seem a bit corny by today's standards, but they do preserve a picture of our finest generation.
.
Actually, the Eastwood’s final scene in Gran Torino is a homage to Jesus Christ and Catholicism.
Eastwood goes to confession and then sets out to give up his life for his friends. (what could be less PC)
Eastwood plays the part of a Korean War Marine veteran that has been haunted by his time in service because of the human lives that he was forced to take. He has recently befriended his new Hmong neighbors who are being terrorized by a Hmong street gang.
Knowing that he is dying of lung cancer and also knowing that he has no chance of killing the entire gang solo he devises his plan to trick the gang in to killing him in a very public manner that will provide the police with ample witnesses to the crime.
In the end Eastwood’s plan succeeds and the final shot of Eastwood he is lying on his back his back his arms straight out to his sides in emulation of Christ on the Cross.
I think the movie is as close as we are likely to come these days to a movie that gives us a Common Christian man as a reluctant hero.
I think it was well done and it is one of my favorite Eastwood movies.
I think it would have been unrealistic to have a 70-year-old man walk in to the gang house M1 and 1911 and kill all of the gang members on their home turf ala The Punisher. I like super hero movies but that is not Eastwood’s style.
Well said.
IIRC this (movie) story supposedly occurred in California. Not that it matters much, the justice system doesn’t work in many places, and certainly not in places where there are gangs. That’s why they thrive where they do.
Liberal ending to the movie, lots of useless tears for the victim, and great hope for the continued freedom of the killers once the bump in the road of the token effort to bring them to justice was behind them.
Those guys were out by the time of his funeral.
I’ve been a Clint Eastwood fan as long as anyone here, and probably longer than most, and it was one of the most disappointing movies of his I’ve ever seen.
Most of his movies included the bad guys brought to justice.
Not here.
Those guys were out by the time of his funeral.
There is a good chance that in the real world that would happen but that is not in the movie.
The movie ends with the reading of the will and the Hmong kid driving the Gran Torino. There is nothing about the gang after their arrest.
Movies are a chance to escape reality for an hour or two why mess up a good movie by reading in to it what isn’t there?
Excellent summary of a great Eastwood movie (Gran Torino).
Balding....you’ve missed the mark so many times on this movie, it may be best if you just bow out of this thread, entirely.
Gran Torino takes place in Michigan, btw. Eastwood’s character retired from the Ford auto plant that made....his Gran Torino. He built it, then bought it.
But, you likely weren’t paying enough attention to the movie (fake ending and location comments), to know this.
Take care.
It has been along time since I saw the movie, I think it’s been 10 years, and I’d forgotten that it did happen in Michigan, but as I pointed out, it doesn’t really matter.
I went to the movie expecting justice to prevail, instead I saw the good guy gunned down, and bunch of gangbangers who killed him turned over to a corrupt and non-effective justice system.
In real life most or all of those killers would be back on the streets by now.
Not the same Clint Eastwood I watched over the years.
Eastwood always made sure justice would prevail.
I can’t see how that happened in Gran Torino.
Saw the 15:17 movie yesterday. I liked it even better than I thought I would. Was concerned about not using professional actors but the heroes were so good in their parts, I forgot I wasn’t watching actors.
Would definitely see it again because you always miss some things the first time around.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.