The 15:17 to Paris

Name: The 15:17 to Paris
Genre: Biography, Drama, History, Thriller
Released: February 9, 2018
Duration: 94 min
Rating: 45
Cast: Alek Skarlatos, Anthony Sadler, Bryce Gheisar, Cecil M. Henry, Gary Weeks

2018

METASCORE

Mixed or average reviews based on 36 Critic Reviews

See All

USER SCORE

Mixed or average reviews based on 106 Ratings

See All

4.8

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

4.8	Your Score
4.8	User Score Mixed or average reviews based on 106 Ratings

Would you like to write a review?

There is a 75 character minimum for reviews. If your review contains spoilers, please check the Spoiler box. Please do not use ALL CAPS. There is no linking or other HTML allowed. Your review may be edited for content. 0/5000

Check box if your review contains spoilers

Play Sound

Please enter your birth date to watch this video:

You are not allowed to view this material at this time.

The 15:17 To Paris

Now Playing: The 15:17 To Paris

Movie Details & Credits

Warner Bros. | Release Date: February 9, 2018 | R

Starring: Alek Skarlatos, Anthony Sadler, Bryce Gheisar, Cecil M. Henry, Gary Weeks, Hélène Cardona, Irene White, Jaleel White, Jenna Fischer, Judy Greer, Lillian Solange Beaudoin, Matthew Barnes, Michael David Yuhl, P.J. Byrne, Ray Corasani, Sinqua Walls, Spencer Stone, Stephen Matthew Smith, Thomas Lennon, Tony Hale, William Jennings

Summary: In the early evening of August 21, 2015, the world watched in stunned silence as the media reported a thwarted terrorist attack on Thalys train #9364 bound for Paris—an attempt prevented by three courageous young Americans traveling through Europe. The film follows the course of the friends’ lives, from the struggles of childhood throughIn the early evening of August 21, 2015, the world watched in stunned silence as the media reported a thwarted terrorist attack on Thalys train #9364 bound for Paris—an attempt prevented by three courageous young Americans traveling through Europe. The film follows the course of the friends’ lives, from the struggles of childhood through finding their footing in life, to the series of unlikely events leading up to the attack. Throughout the harrowing ordeal, their friendship never wavers, making it their greatest weapon and allowing them to save the lives of the more than 500 passengers on board.… Expand

Director: Clint Eastwood

Genre(s): Biography, Drama, History, Thriller

Rating: R

Runtime: 94 min

See All Details and Credits

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Metascore

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Critic Reviews

100

John Semley

Feb 8, 2018

The 15:17 To Paris, like "Sully," "American Sniper" and (to a lesser extent) "Gran Torino" before it, combines such conceptions of late style: both harmonious and intransigent, resolute and difficult, defined by lively contradiction. Read full review

Peter Travers

Feb 8, 2018

The complex movie that might have been is still on the drawing board, teasing us with a deeper story that's disappointingly out of reach. Read full review

Todd McCarthy

Feb 7, 2018

Eastwood's main achievement here lies in trusting his hunch that the young men could handle playing themselves onscreen, with an acceptable naturalness and without self-consciousness. This they do, without a false note. Read full review

Rex Reed

Feb 14, 2018

Despite good intentions, the movie never lives up to the breathless excitement the real-life story promises. Read full review

Tim Grierson

Feb 7, 2018

On the whole, 15:17’s slavish adherence to reality ends up arguing that, sometimes, a little Hollywood phoniness can go a long way. Read full review

David Sims

Feb 12, 2018

Perhaps his curious gambit of casting real-life figures would never have gelled, but Stone, Skarlatos, and Sadler are not unsympathetic, just untrained in front of the camera. With more time and effort The 15:17 to Paris might have worked; as it is, it’s little more than a failed experiment. Read full review

Simon Thompson

Feb 8, 2018

One of the worst, most inexcusably poor movies Clint Eastwood has turned out in his career behind the camera and a possible contender for one of the worst films of the year. The 15:17 to Paris is so bad in so many ways that it’s impossible to recommend and that’s a crying shame. Read full review

SEE ALL 36 REVIEWS

Write a Review

User Reviews

ledaumas

Feb 9, 2018

I didn’t really want to see this movie until I found out the heroes played themselves, including Mark Moogalian. It made the recreation more real to me where there was less “dramatic license” than most movies based on true events. These guys won’t be getting acting awards, but the story wasI didn’t really want to see this movie until I found out the heroes played themselves, including Mark Moogalian. It made the recreation more real to me where there was less “dramatic license” than most movies based on true events. These guys won’t be getting acting awards, but the story was told well (a little slow though until the incident) on why they were able to stop this gunman. It was a worthwhile experiment to use the real people!… Expand

8 of 14 users found this helpful86

KipWinger

Feb 11, 2018

Spoiler-free

The 15:17 to Paris is definitely nowhere near as bad as the professional reviewers and some of the audience comments might lead you to believe. Were there moments of cringe-worthy dialogue? A few perhaps. Was it obvious that the three main actors weren't really actors? Yes,Spoiler-free

The 15:17 to Paris is definitely nowhere near as bad as the professional reviewers and some of the audience comments might lead you to believe. Were there moments of cringe-worthy dialogue? A few perhaps. Was it obvious that the three main actors weren't really actors? Yes, but, honestly, that was actually refreshing. Because we live in a very photoshopped and airbrushed and overly-rehearsed and overly-polished society media-wise. The media in almost all of its forms offers us the common man and woman these near impossible standards of beauty, grace, athleticism, eloquence, etc, and not to mention in films especially, absolutely over-the-top and outlandish unreal action sequences. So it was more than refreshing to see something that matches up more with real life and that shows some of the awkwardness and banality, and even mundaneness and mediocrity, of the average Joe and average Jane.

Now, in my opinion, yes, the three Heroes / actors are a bit too wooden and solemn in their dialogue. I would assume that in real life they have more banter and more of a joking nature in at least some of their interactions. But in the movie, this either wasn't shown, or when the attempt was made to show some levity, it usually seemed to fall fairly flat.

But again, I did not personally find that nearly as offensive and detracting from the overall quality of the movie as did the majority of the critics and some of the non-professional reviewers. In fact, again, I found it to be rather refreshing.

For me, the movie worked, and worked very well. It's certainly not a masterpiece like Unforgiven or Gran Torino. And it certainly doesn't have the same dramatic punch throughout like Sully and United 93 had. In fact, I think it would have been interesting if they had made some mention of United 93 in the movie as a form of foreshadowing. These young men / heroes are all in their mid-twenties, so they would have been around 10 years old when 9/11 happened, and probably in there early to mid-teens wind the movie United 93 came out, so, in my opinion, that certainly could have made for something that might have inspired these boys.

Overall, an excellent movie and well worth watching. And if you go, make sure you stay at least halfway through the end credits.… Expand

5 of 7 users found this helpful52

Uridon

Mar 2, 2018

Clint Eastwood's latest film marks the end of a trilogy about modern American heroes.
This movie has some of the sappy army drama and hokiness of American Sniper, but also the very down to earth and inspiring elements of Sully. I enjoyed all the films in this trilogy, and found this to be aClint Eastwood's latest film marks the end of a trilogy about modern American heroes.
This movie has some of the sappy army drama and hokiness of American Sniper, but also the very down to earth and inspiring elements of Sully. I enjoyed all the films in this trilogy, and found this to be a solid 7. It's a bit on the nose in the beginning, and there's a bit of fluff in the middle, but it gets the job done, and the great ending reaches the same heights as the plane landing in Sully.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

NobodyYouKnow

Feb 18, 2019

A tale of true heroism is unfortunately marred by an hour-long buildup of religio-patriotic hokum. I get that Eastwood wanted to show what led these men to take the action they took, but it feels more like flag-waving hero worship than realistic biopic. Some of the dialogue is hopelesslyA tale of true heroism is unfortunately marred by an hour-long buildup of religio-patriotic hokum. I get that Eastwood wanted to show what led these men to take the action they took, but it feels more like flag-waving hero worship than realistic biopic. Some of the dialogue is hopelessly stilted, especially when the boys are young and talking with each other. Sorry, boys -- and kids in general -- just don't talk like that.
That said, the confrontation in the train is truly dramatic, and Eastwood's direction shines here... except for Stone's thumb. I mean, we get it; his thumb got effed up. WE GET IT, Clint.
The final scene was genuinely moving, and I found myself actually tearing up. The heroism of these men can't be denied, and the speech given by the French official should move anyone with a pulse.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

GrantD243

Apr 25, 2018

The 15:17 to Paris is one of those movies that I'm not quite sure why it was made. Is it a heroic story? Yes, but the actual story is an event that lasted maybe 10 minutes. So to make an entire film about it, and cast the actual people from the event in the movie... Let's just say myThe 15:17 to Paris is one of those movies that I'm not quite sure why it was made. Is it a heroic story? Yes, but the actual story is an event that lasted maybe 10 minutes. So to make an entire film about it, and cast the actual people from the event in the movie... Let's just say my expectations were pretty low going in, and it didn't even meet them. The acting in this movie is quite painful to watch at times. I don't think this is entirely the fault of the actors considering how few takes Clint Eastwood has been known to take, but it really sticks out like a sore thumb at times. You can also tell that the actual people from the event had never acted before this movie, although they weren't as bad as I was expecting them to be. But, the acting isn't even the reason why this movie is a stinker. This movie is a stinker because 96% of it doesn't matter. None of the plot matters that much when you reach the end. It's as simple as that. It's all just fluff until you reach the final 20 minutes of the movie, and not good fluff at that. I wasn't gonna mention this originally, but there were also some fairly random religious references throughout this movie that felt quite out of place to me and the person I saw the movie with. Just felt shoehorned in.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

Sonrisas

Feb 13, 2018

I think Clint could have made this into a nice movie short-maybe 45 minutes. That's about the length of time it would take to cover relevant detail on Spencer Stone's background and add some detail for Anthony Sadler and Alek Skarlatos that was missing. At 96 minutes running time, it stillI think Clint could have made this into a nice movie short-maybe 45 minutes. That's about the length of time it would take to cover relevant detail on Spencer Stone's background and add some detail for Anthony Sadler and Alek Skarlatos that was missing. At 96 minutes running time, it still needed significant editing. The middle portion of the movie, which showed the guys touring Europe before the fateful train trip, was especially tedious and included banal dialogue and little of interest. We didn't learn much about our heroes from that, so why include it? And how did I emerge from that movie having watched four people subdue a terrorist and aid a badly injured man and still not feel a sense of tremendous pride and nationalism? Perhaps it was too unpretentious and too concerned with an accurate retelling complete with mundane detail? I don't know. What I do know is there was vastly more dramatic tension and emotion in the low budget Bollywood movie I saw yesterday, Pad Man, about a dude in India who devoted is life to developing a cheap menstrual pad to save the lives of many women there. That's a movie worth seeing. This was a mess and should be a source of embarrassment for Clint Eastwood.… Expand

3 of 7 users found this helpful34

Shnonyoucrzdmnd

Aug 2, 2022

I couldn't pinpoint what felt so awkward about this movie at first but i really think its a combination of the terrible acting, badly written dialogue, and most of the story being completely pointless which ultimately makes it unwatchable. I sat through the whole thing because i saw it wasI couldn't pinpoint what felt so awkward about this movie at first but i really think its a combination of the terrible acting, badly written dialogue, and most of the story being completely pointless which ultimately makes it unwatchable. I sat through the whole thing because i saw it was based on true events but the entire time i was waiting for it to get exciting but nothing happened until the last 15 minutes of the movie. Even during the action at the end, i still felt like it was a film students first ever project. I 100% don't recommend this… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

SEE ALL 40 REVIEWS

95	#95 Most Discussed Movie of 2018
42	#42 Most Shared Movie of 2018