15:17 Tren a París

Creo que si Eastwood lo hubiera hecho como un largometraje documental habría sido un éxito. La estructura es bastante floja, pero no criticaría 15:17 Tren a París, la dirección de Eastwood es muy hábil y la película es entretenida incluso en las escenas en las que está demasiado ocupada en conocer a los personajes y sus posteriores andanzas por Europa. La escena crítica que todo el mundo espera sucede sin mucha gradación y pasa terriblemente rápido, por lo que entiendo la frustración de gran parte del público. No tengo nada en contra del reparto de personas reales, creo que fue una elección acertada y los actores lo manejaron bastante bien. Y Clint siempre consigue dar un giro decente al idealizado patriotismo americano, por lo que la película no chirría en absoluto. Por ejemplo, ese ondear de la bandera americana al final de la alabada Salvar al soldado Ryan al son de una reverberante canción de John Williams es un patetismo mucho peor. (12.06.2020)

A relaxed, laid-back road movie through Europe combined with an attempt to faithfully recreate a foiled terrorist attack in France equals a slight dud. There’s none of Eastwood's excellent playwriting and character refinement. He borrowed real actors, but the outcome backfired. Too much conversation, too little attack, including completely incomprehensible time jumps in the script. Out of respect for the material and for the guys who put a similarly high level of commitment into acting as they did into saving lives in the real world. (18.05.2018)

I wonder if all the critics of “American patriotism" who scold this film would be shouting so much if the main protagonists weren't Americans, but maybe Italians or Poles. I think not. Clint Eastwood doesn't give a damn where these guys are from - he was interested in their ordinary heroics and where, in a simple man, the courage to “just do something" comes from. Rather than glorious, I think he wanted to make a motivating film, and he did. Eastwood then showed his own courage when he cast the three guys whose story he is telling in the main roles, and along with an army of various acting coaches, he made it look natural in front of the camera. He did a great job of it. Their ordinary childhood and quite common worries with their choice of profession and a trip around Europe contrast quite sharply with that unhinged horror on the train, which Eastwood filmed with his typical style of a cold observer. (14.07.2019)

Come on, surely no one was expecting a ninety-minute film that would all take place on a train. They would have to develop the storyline of each passenger, and that already sounds rather odd on its own. I personally expected a film that would highlight the lives of these three exceptional heroes who, in a split second, made the right decision and prevented a looming catastrophe. I enjoyed their friendship from Catholic school, and later their trip through Europe. Of course, don't expect anything groundbreaking, it has its flaws, and at times it can be a bit dull, but as the audience realizes what is about to unfold, the tension only increases. And the ending certainly delivered, that scene with the disarmament was truly powerful. I admire Clint Eastwood, who is nearly 88 years old is and still able to give directions from the director’s chair on what should be done and how. I see that as a display of life’s vitality combined with an inexhaustible reserve of energy that he could easily share. And I still can’t fathom why no one has thought of casting the real-life participants in the lead roles until now (if we’re talking about films based on true events)? That kind of fresh idea was missing in cinema. The ending might be slightly over the top, but let’s be honest, don’t these guys deserve it? I give it 73%. (21.05.2018)