Réalisation:
Clint EastwoodScénario:
Dorothy BlyskalPhotographie:
Tom SternActeurs·trices:
Ray Corasani, Alek Skarlatos, Anthony Sadler, Spencer Stone, Mark Moogalian, Isabelle Risacher Moogalian, Judy Greer, Jenna Fischer (plus)VOD (3)
Résumés(1)
Dans la soirée du 21 août 2015, le monde, sidéré, apprend qu'un attentat a été déjoué à bord du Thalys 9364 à destination de Paris. Une attaque évitée de justesse grâce à trois Américains qui voyageaient en Europe. Le film s'attache à leur parcours et revient sur la série d'événements improbables qui les ont amenés à se retrouver à bord de ce train. Tout au long de cette terrible épreuve, leur amitié est restée inébranlable. Une amitié d'une force inouïe qui leur a permis de sauver la vie des 500 passagers… (Warner Bros. FR)
(plus)Vidéo (2)
Critiques (5)
Selon moi, si Eastwood avait opté pour un long-métrage documentaire, il aurait marqué dans lemille. La structure choisie laisse quelque peu à désirer, mais je ne rejetterais Le 15 h 17 pour Paris en aucun cas ; la réalisation d’Eastwood est très habile et le film plaît, même dans les scènes s’éternisant sur la présentation des personnages et leurs pérégrinations à travers l’Europe. La scène critique que tout le monde attend ne donne suite à aucune gradation et se déroule extrêmement vite, donc je comprends qu’une bonne partie du public soit frustré. Les rôles joués par des personnes réelles ne me dérangent pas ; je pense que c’était un choix sensé et, dans l’ensemble, ces gars ont bien joué la chose. Quant au patriotisme américain idéalisé, Clint Eastwood arrive toujours à le faire passer avec tact, évitant sa surabondance dans le film– par contraste avec l’encensé Il faut sauver le soldat Ryan et sa fin nettement plus pathétique, dans laquelle flotte un drapeau américain sur une composition grandiloquente de John Williams. ()
A relaxed, laid-back road movie through Europe combined with an attempt to faithfully recreate a foiled terrorist attack in France equals a slight dud. There’s none of Eastwood's excellent playwriting and character refinement. He borrowed real actors, but the outcome backfired. Too much conversation, too little attack, including completely incomprehensible time jumps in the script. Out of respect for the material and for the guys who put a similarly high level of commitment into acting as they did into saving lives in the real world. ()
Come on, surely no one was expecting a ninety-minute film that would all take place on a train. They would have to develop the storyline of each passenger, and that already sounds rather odd on its own. I personally expected a film that would highlight the lives of these three exceptional heroes who, in a split second, made the right decision and prevented a looming catastrophe. I enjoyed their friendship from Catholic school, and later their trip through Europe. Of course, don't expect anything groundbreaking, it has its flaws, and at times it can be a bit dull, but as the audience realizes what is about to unfold, the tension only increases. And the ending certainly delivered, that scene with the disarmament was truly powerful. I admire Clint Eastwood, who is nearly 88 years old is and still able to give directions from the director’s chair on what should be done and how. I see that as a display of life’s vitality combined with an inexhaustible reserve of energy that he could easily share. And I still can’t fathom why no one has thought of casting the real-life participants in the lead roles until now (if we’re talking about films based on true events)? That kind of fresh idea was missing in cinema. The ending might be slightly over the top, but let’s be honest, don’t these guys deserve it? I give it 73%. ()
I wonder if all the critics of “American patriotism" who scold this film would be shouting so much if the main protagonists weren't Americans, but maybe Italians or Poles. I think not. Clint Eastwood doesn't give a damn where these guys are from - he was interested in their ordinary heroics and where, in a simple man, the courage to “just do something" comes from. Rather than glorious, I think he wanted to make a motivating film, and he did. Eastwood then showed his own courage when he cast the three guys whose story he is telling in the main roles, and along with an army of various acting coaches, he made it look natural in front of the camera. He did a great job of it. Their ordinary childhood and quite common worries with their choice of profession and a trip around Europe contrast quite sharply with that unhinged horror on the train, which Eastwood filmed with his typical style of a cold observer. ()
Hey, Clint, regarding the casting for that last scene, the thank-you speech and medal presentation, we don't have anyone who even remotely resembles that French president. But what if I tell you it’s already been filmed? The risky move with the casting didn’t matter so much as the cooking with expected ingredients before serving the train wreck. Eastwood prepared it with unprecedented helplessness. Well, here we are, almost seventy years after the war, and once again, Americans are saving the French's behind, some paradoxically even in German jerseys. ()
Annonces