Reply
Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 7,425
Registered: ‎03-10-2010

Re: The 15:17 To Paris

[ Edited ]

@TenderMercieswrote:

wrote:

wrote:

Wow.  I didn’t know he hired the actual guys to play themselves.  I wonder why he would do that?  


 

@TenderMercies   originally he didn't. They were hired to be consultants and then he decided to use them rather than the actors he had hired. They spoke about this last week on The View.


@Tique I guess the good news is that despite some negative reviews and unconventional casting choices, the movie made 12.6 million dollars in the last two days, and the overall budget for the film was 30 million.  At least the studio will make it's goal, and the studios won't stop Clint from making more films.  His next film, "The Mule,"which is in pre-production, looks really interesting.  He will direct and play a WWII veteran who smuggles drugs for a Mexican cartel.  Onward and upward.


I saw the movie Sunday and it was very good- not 'epic movie'  good but it held it's own! Of course everything was leading up to the final few scenes- and the last half hour was terrific.  I thought the heroes playing their own roles worked. They were decent actors when it came down to it- I can see Spencer and Alek have potential careers.  I actually thought the kids playing their younger roles could have been cast better!  

Honored Contributor
Posts: 20,648
Registered: ‎03-09-2010

I was reading Entertainment Weekly last night and they had a review on this movie.  I was interested to read it because I've been wanting to see the movie at some point.

 

EW gave the movie a 'D' rating.  They said, except for the one bit when the event occurred, the other 3/4 of the movie was just all filler, shallow, and phoniness.    But it did say that that one small part of the film was well done.

 

Eastwood is a great director, so I'm a bit surprised.   I'll still watch it when it hits HBO or something like that, though.  Smiley Happy

Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 7,425
Registered: ‎03-10-2010

@chickenbuttwrote:

I was reading Entertainment Weekly last night and they had a review on this movie.  I was interested to read it because I've been wanting to see the movie at some point.

 

EW gave the movie a 'D' rating.  They said, except for the one bit when the event occurred, the other 3/4 of the movie was just all filler, shallow, and phoniness.    But it did say that that one small part of the film was well done.

 

Eastwood is a great director, so I'm a bit surprised.   I'll still watch it when it hits HBO or something like that, though.  Smiley Happy


@chickenbutt 3/4 of the movie was leading up to the actual attack- sort of the journey of  the 3 guys. I thought there could have been additional editing in those parts quite honestly - but a 'D'? RT rating  was about 20%. The critics have been unnecessarily harsh imo.