The Clint Eastwood 2018 Movie Everyone Hated Has a Secret Strength

With his 2018 film The 15:17 to Paris, director Clint Eastwood was given the chance to dramatize a rare act of modern-day heroism. While his other 2010s movies like Sully and American Sniper found intriguing angles on true 21st-century American personalities, The 15:17 was different. The true story of three American friends (two of whom were active-duty military) taking a Thalys train from Amsterdam to Paris during a European vacation and ultimately stopping a terrorist attack was a stirring one, and one that could have made for a strong thriller or classic Eastwood character study. But The 15:17 to Paris ended up being neither, in large part because of Eastwood’s fascinating and unconventional decision to cast the real men to play themselves. It’s one of the rare biopics where, when you see the real guys at the end, it’s the people you’ve been watching the whole time.

Between the movie’s use of non-professional actors and its general lack of tension, it had a hard time achieving psychological depth and excitement. While Clint Eastwood has frequently made films dramatizing real events, like Bird and Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, The 15:17 to Paris was received far less warmly than those efforts. There are plenty of reasons for the movie to be unloved, including the acting and almost comedically brief climax, but there’s a lot to be appreciated as well, including the movie’s casual, understated portrait of 21st-century military life and male friendship. Eastwood’s willingness to let the story be without unnecessary adornment is a great strength of his, going back to his 1971 directorial debut Play Misty For Me, and it’s especially valuable here.

Clint Eastwood Has Used Non-Professional Actors Before ‘The 15:17 to Paris’

Image via Warner Bros.

The three friends who serve as heroes of The 15:17 to Paris are Spencer Stone, Alek Skarlatos, and Anthony Sadler. The former two are also active military, with Alek serving in Afghanistan and Spencer having his dreams of being an Air Force pararescue taken from him due to his poor depth perception. Dorothy Blyskal’s screenplay somewhat awkwardly balances the demands of a Hollywood entertainment with telling this true story, giving them a traumatic childhood of isolation and bullying (as well as being children of single mothers, which the movie takes pains to establish could turn them into statistics). As kids, Spencer and Alek are awkward and regular visitors to the principal’s office. Anthony often joins them.

The 15:17 to Paris deals with the military from the vantage point of kids who obsess over it, as well as adults who are serving. Compared to the similar territory Clint Eastwood mined with his 2014 biopic American Sniper, 15:17 is concerned with low-level guys, the last ones you would expect to rise to the occasion in the event of a crisis. By presenting the leads as normal, unassuming, and even occasionally incompetent, the movie gets viewers to a place where the act of heroism that defines them is practically unexpected. That’s where casting the men to play themselves pays off. By sidelining the movie star charisma you might have gotten from, say, Kyle Gallner (who was reportedly interested in the part), you’re left with regular, everyday people. Clint Eastwood has worked with non-professional actors before, notably casting unknown Hmong actors in Gran Torino and The Lady Chablis to play herself in Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil. But this was his biggest gamble yet.

‘The 15:17 to Paris’ Is a Laidback Study of Brotherly Bonds

At its best, The 15:17 to Paris simply lets its three leads hang out, infamously spending some 5 minutes of its 90-minute runtime on watching Spencer and Anthony eating gelato. Scenes often run without much purpose or drama — there’s no concern about relationships, about violence, about personal failure, and when there is, it’s resolved in the next scene. One example would be Spencer deciding he wants to join the Air Force, realizing he needs to get in shape, and immediately embarking upon a military training regimen. While Dorothy Blyskal’s script follows a standard Hollywood biopic structure, the scenes themselves often feel improvised, which is an unusual feeling compared to the tight, spare emotion of most Eastwood movies. It’s no wonder the movie became a common answer for the director’s worst film over a 50-year career, and lacking even the dad movie charm of something like Sully.

Yet, as a young Spencer explains to his friends, part of the appeal of military life is camaraderie and “brotherhood.” Sometimes that extends to cracking jokes and going to clubs in Amsterdam, being embarrassing Americans in Europe, using selfie sticks, and yes, eating gelato. The movie takes a long time getting to its ultimate destination, which is exciting in itself (if a little brief), filmed with Eastwood’s trademark immediacy and levelheadedness, as we see the various lessons characters have learned throughout put to the test. But as a whole, the movie’s most worthwhile quality is exploring complex but inarticulate male friendship and the long distance between glory and purpose for people who have found their lives directionless.