The 15:17 to Paris

[wolfen]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IC_lnyn2R2Q

THE 15:17 TO PARIS - Official Trailer [HD] Release Date Feb 9, 2018

The interesting thing is the three protagonists are played by the actual soldiers from the incident and not professional actors.


Spencer Stone as himself
Anthony Sadler as himself
Alek Skarlatos as himself
Mark Moogalian as himself
Isabelle Risacher Moogalian as herself

Top User review on IMDB



Nowhere Near Clint Eastwood's Best
9 February 2018 | by neener3707 –

While it doesn't come close to Clint Eastwood's best films, I still definitely enjoyed this story of life and bravery., but some will find the film too slow and just waiting for the thwarted terrorist attack. We all know the story, 3 Americans stop an attempted terrorist attack aboard a train to Paris, but the film is almost barely about that, its more of story about their lives and what led them to their destiny. I only really sort of didn't like the acting, which I will discuss later, but for the most part I had no issues with this film, which is not over-patriotic flag waving propaganda like many anti-military Liberals will say it is. Its a story about the lives of men as well as when bravery is forced upon average citizens.

First off, about the acting, the Americans didn't do the best job, but that is understandable because these are not actors, but the real men who were there. So its very clear that they are untrained actors, even with the help of veteran actor Clint Eastwood. The story was well put together, chronicling the lives of the heroes in question. Though some of the touching an emotional conversations are bit cheesy, which is surprising coming from Clint Eastwood but it goes by quickly and was no real issue. But over all I thoroughly enjoyed this film, even with its slight flaws that honestly only bothered me slightly.

I would recommend it.





Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_15:17_to_Paris#Critical_response)
Writing for Showbiz411, Roger Friedman acknowledged the film's attempts to be different by casting the real-life men and said, "If there’s a problem with 15:17 it’s that it’s almost filmed like cinema verite, certainly as the story unfolds.
There’s a lot of exposition and it seems slow. Again, a little patience wouldn’t hurt anyone. Because when the kids’ backstories switch to the main guys, Eastwood finds a groove. Forgive him if the entry seems clunky."
Similarly, A. O. Scott of The New York Times * (A Former Newspaper) * gave the film a positive review and wrote, "But [Eastwood's] workmanlike absorption in the task at hand is precisely what makes this movie fascinating as well as moving. Its radical plainness is tinged with mystery."

[wolfen]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_uKXjQf52k

"The 15:17 to Paris" shows "the real America" | Ben Davies

Amazingly all three heroes were from California, from the old California I guess.

[wolfen]

Who hates us more, the Liberal Left MSN or Islamic Jihadists? It's hard to tell, they hate us equally. Here's the proof, beyond a doubt.

This is called the Red-Green Axis, the alliance between the Progressive Left and the Islamic Ideology of Jihad.

Media and Hollywood Elites Blast Clint Eastwood’s Film for Not Portraying ‘Sympathetic Terrorist’ (https://gellerreport.com/2018/02/1517-to-paris.html/)



Clint Eastwood’s new movie, “The 15:17 to Paris,” is based on true events, where three American heroes take down an armed-to-the-teeth jhadi on a Paris train in 2015. When I first heard rumblings about the left’s attacks on the film a few days back, I thought it was only the words of the deranged few. How silly of me.

National Post wrote: “15:17 to Paris overly simplifies the attack and its aftermath. The terrorist (Ray Corasani) snarls and wears sneakers, but there’s little more to him.”

I saw Clint Eastwood’s 15:17 to Paris, and I agree with the National Post for entirely different reasons. I was disappointed that Muslim terrorost Ayoub El-Khazzani was basically a man with a big gun and other weapons of savage violence. No mention of motive, no mention of his radical mosque, no background, nothing speaking to his religious ideology. Jihad has been scrubbed from the film, as it has from every Hollywood production.

A true martyr for Allah — prepared to “fight to the end.” “He and his brother were very devout; they dressed like Afghans and all that, but I can’t believe this,” said one young Muslim friend of the Paris jihadi Ayoub El-Khazzani

As soon as the Ayoub El-Khazzani entered the train, he began opening fire.

Don’t get me wrong. I love Eastwood and I love his films. He is the only truth-teller in that vile cesspool of grotesque violence, sex, lies and videotape. But the gross omission of who and what the enemy was on the 15:17 to Paris was deeply disappointing. For all we know, he was mad at his mom.

10508


Liberal film reviewers had already made their opinions of Eastwood and American patriotism known following the 2014 release of “American Sniper,” but they have reiterated their anti-Americanism and sympathy toward Islamic extremists in their reviews of “The 15:17 To Paris.”

The reviewer for the National Post complained that the movie was akin to sitting through somebody else’s vacation, and lamented that the terrorist didn’t receive enough screen time. He wrote: “15:17 to Paris overly simplifies the attack and its aftermath. The terrorist (Ray Corasani) snarls and wears sneakers, but there’s little more to him.”

The reviewer for Slate also griped about feeling like he was watching a slideshow of another person’s vacation in Europe, and took up too much of the film too boot, and wrote, “The sense of wheelspinning only underlines the movie’s failure to make its antagonist more than a cartoon scowl with a Kalashnikov. The geese in Sully (a Tom Hanks film about a passenger jet which crash landed on the Hudson River) were more well-rounded characters.”

The Slant Magazine reviewer, when not sneering at conservatives, Christianity, the military and Eastwood’s method of film-making, took issue with the film’s departure from the “surprisingly visceral and nuanced book,” and wrote, “One misses the prismatic structure of the 15:17 to Paris book, which fuses multiple points of view—including El-Khazzani’s—and which is reduced by (screenwriter) Dorothy Blyskal’s script to cut-and-pasted bromides.”

Over at The Daily Beast, the reviewer stated that the film was “more mind-numbing than his empty chair speech” and called it a “stunning misfire.” Of the terrorist, he wrote, “As for the villain in question, Eastwood primarily films his hands, sneakers, arms, and back, all as a means of making him some sort of faceless existential threat — a symbolic vehicle for Stone’s ‘greater purpose.’ Mostly, though, it’s just another example of The 15:17 to Paris’ regrettable blankness.”…

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette review, which did lament the exclusion of “any hint of the terrorist’s motivation,” led the way with an open bashing of American patriotism combined with a not-so-subtle shot at Trump, and wrote, “There’s a certain repellent hubris about (Eastwood’s) patriotic formula: Make America grate again, on the rest of the world, in paint-by-numbers (red, white and blue), which happen to be the same as the Tricouleur — not that Mr. Eastwood makes any use or reference to that.”

The reviewer for the The U.K. Daily Mail wrote of the three heroes, “In that sacred American way, incidentally, their Christianity is not incompatible with an obsession with firearms,” and continued with, “The *narrative throbs with Eastwood’s *conviction — shared, as we know, by President Trump — that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Better still, a good guy with a gun and a bible.”

Last, but certainly not least, we have the review from The New Yorker, in which the reviewer called the film a “reactionary fable” and described a scene in which a young Sadler and Stone play with an “arsenal” of toy guns, about which the reviewer wrote, “As I watched the scene, I thought, You could cut it out of this movie and paste it, unchanged, into another one, about a nice suburban kid who grows up and carries out a mass shooting.”

That New Yorker reviewer also criticized the lack of answers to questions about the terrorist, and wrote, “Was this not an ideal opportunity to trace the paths — whether of grievance, paranoia, faith, or wrath — that lead a young man to dreams of slaughter? Was he not, in his way, catapulted toward his purpose no less firmly than Stone and his companions were, and with an equally fervent belief that he was obeying the decrees of his God?”…

Ah yes, as the New Yorker says, the poor aggrieved Jihadist,he was only obeying the dictates of the Koran. Who are we to judge or to stop him? :rolleyes:
..
This is a common use of sympathy as a manipulative tool to undermine the protective shield of Western Society. The use of "feels" to undermine "facts".