In Memoriam 1942 – 2013 “Roger Ebert loved movies.”

Thumb deadpool poster

Once Upon a Deadpool

Not just a heavily redacted version of the film that will be playing around the clock on basic cable in a couple of years.

Thumb spiderverse poser

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse

Directors Bob Persichetti, Peter Ramsey, and Rodney Rothman have breathed thrilling new life into the comic book movie. The way they play with tone, form…

Other Reviews
Review Archives
Thumb tvovw7qjj63zbqw5tz8cjpthaud

Schindler's List

This was published on June 24th, 2001, and we are republishing it in honor of the film's 25th anniversary rerelease."Schindler's List" is described as a…

Other Reviews
Great Movie Archives
Other Articles
Blog Archives
Primary 15 17 image

The Unloved, Part 60: The 15:17 to Paris

There have been rumblings about Clint Eastwood retiring from filmmaking, which has me conflicted: I've been a fan of his acting and direction since I was about 15, even though my relationship to his direction has had ups and downs (the year 2014, for instance). But maybe this month's "The Mule" should be his last film, if only to spare him the onslaught of think-pieces and critical ire as he plows ahead—Eastwood seems to be increasingly at odds with the current political climate (he tried to get Mitt Romney elected, after all) and his films frequently play like dispatches from a right-wing culture that critics have trouble parsing. And even then, in Eastwood's case it's not black and white: I hated "American Sniper" but read some really fascinating and eloquent defenses of the movie when it came out. 


I sort of assumed that the strange performance-art qualities of "The 15:17 To Paris" might endear it to people who might be a little less willing to indulge its worldview. I was wrong. 

The more I thought about "The 15:17 to Paris," and the more talking I did with my friend, the critic Willow Maclay, the more I came to see that despite a god-and-gun-loving prologue, this movie really isn't about right-wing fetishes or beliefs. It's essentially about three ordinary guys (at least one of whom has real trouble doing anything meaningful with himself—we meet his adult self working at a Jamba Juice) who find the tools necessary to help themselves. It just happens that the armed services allow people like Spencer Stone to get in touch with their fundamental urge to help people. And a point I didn't think much of initially but now does seem crucial—they don't kill or shoot anybody. The film is about a guy who has to look down the barrel of a gun, a gun he's depicted as nearly worshipping as a kid, and recognize that it'd be worth being shot to try and help people, to stop other people from being scared. That's not really a conservative viewpoint, that's a sort of extremist humanism. These were just guys and Eastwood films them that way. He lets them drink and dance and flirt with girls and love each other and it's just as transfixing as if this were a Western or a war film. 

I don't want Eastwood to stop making movies, and I'll be sad if he does. Even if I don't love all of them, they're fascinating to contemplate. 

Popular Blog Posts

Who do you read? Good Roger, or Bad Roger?

This message came to me from a reader named Peter Svensland. He and a fr...

The Baffling Failure of Fallout 76

A review of Fallout 76.

Video games can never be art

Having once made the statement above, I have declined all opportunities to ...

Reveal Comments
comments powered by Disqus