15:17 to Paris

1. Remember that old Patton Oswalt bit, where he imagined he would travel back in time to 1993 to kill George Lucas with a shovel? Oswalt imagined a hypothetical Lucas explaining to him that, hey, if you liked Darth Vader … you get to see him as a little kid! “I … I don’t care about that at all,” is all a flustered Oswalt can respond. Well, with 15:17 to Paris, Clint Eastwood has somehow topped Lucas in the Extremely Stupid Idea contest. Eastwood makes the Lucas mistake of assuming we would care about the convoluted, dull backstory of main characters … except, as adults, they’re somehow even more boring than they were as children. Eastwood’s movie provokes almost existential questions about what movies are, why we watch them, why we make them, why we we care about any of this. What is this movie? Who are these people? Why am I watching this? Seriously: Why am I watching them? It’s the most misguided movie by a major American filmmaker I can remember.
2. The movie is a retelling, somewhat, of the true-life story of three American tourists who, back in 2015, stopped a terrorist attack on a train en route from Paris to Amsterdam. This was an inspiring story at the time, three childhood best friends backpacking through Europe who, when they saw something, did something. It’s the sort of story that makes you feel good about humanity—regular people, stepping up in a moment of crisis to save lives. But, uh … what else you got? Well, as Eastwood would have it, the “what else” is enough to make up a whole movie: The backstories of these three men, Spencer Stone, Anthony Sadler and Alek Skarlatos, are the Darth Vader-as-a-little-kid narrative spine of the whole film. And, all due respect to those three men, their backstories have the dramatic thrust of a yearbook photo. They are best friends as kids. They grow up. One goes to Afghanistan; one becomes an intake clerk at an army base; one, apparently, just happens to be available on Skype when the first two decide to go backpacking through Europe. That is the story. That is 65 minutes of screen time. It is like watching butter melt at room temperature.
3. In an attempt to nail down the verisimilitude of the three buddies’ friendship, Eastwood has made the curious decision to in fact cast Stone, Sadler and Skarlatos as themselves. (It is possible that no seasoned actor could find much interesting in the men to play.) This is a risky proposition, not entirely dissimilar to a defendant serving as his own lawyer in court; sure, you might know the case better than anybody else, but knowing the case turns out to be a rather small part of the job. Pointing out that the three men have little charisma or screen presence is an unpleasant chore but a required one nonetheless. (Skarlatos is the closest, which means of course he’s on screen the least of the three.) But it’s not fair to blame them. Filmmakers have been working with non-actors to great success for decades; two of the best performances of 2017 (Brooklynn Prince and Bria Vinaite in The Florida Project) were from non-actors, and directors like Paul Greengrass have been using non-actors to establish instant credibility and believability for decades. But Eastwood is, suffice it to say, no Peter Greengrass.