I will never forget the movie-going climate of my freshman year spring semester, back in 2015. The two biggest movies that spring couldn’t possibly have been more different: “Fifty Shades of Grey” and “American Sniper.”

One was a hotly anticipated romance film for moms and sorority pledge classes that needed a non-alcoholic activity, and one was a patriotic romp for all the bros to gather around for — you can figure out which was which.

Fast forward to today: I’m now in my senior year, and we have an interesting symmetry. In theaters now we’ve got “Fifty Shades Freed,” the culmination of that original steamy film, and “The 15:17 to Paris,” which acts almost as a spiritual sequel to the Eastwood-directed “American Sniper.”

While “Fifty Shades” might dominate most headlines, Clint Eastwood has created a film that’s the perfect counter-program for the non-frisky people out there.

I think “The 15:17 to Paris” works great from a marketing perspective, but creatively it was a mess. I saw the film, and not only was I unimpressed, but I found it really to be among one of the lesser quality movies I’ve seen in theaters.

While the acting was justifiably bad due to the fact the main characters played themselves in this true story, the writing was additionally insufferable. Thus, this provides us a unique opportunity to view a movie outside of the quality of the product itself, and instead look at where it fits in the marketplace.

It goes without saying that “Fifty Shades” dominates with the female crowd, so Warner Bros. was very wise to program this movie going directly against it. “The 15:17 to Paris” is not only a movie that a guy would reasonably enjoy, but it is almost a tribute to the bromance.

Here’s a movie about three best friends who not only enjoy each other’s company and have a rich relationship, but actually use this bond to save lives. If you ever wanted justification of you and your buddies hanging out, here it is.

This isn’t the first time Eastwood has created a movie that works well for male crowds. In fact, he exists in a very interesting context in Hollywood’s history, which allows him to create this type of film. While our generation thinks of Eastwood as a director who you’ll occasionally see acting, historically he is really an actor who later veered into directing.

We must remember that Eastwood is thought of as one of Hollywood’s best cowboys and macho men. Eastwood is the literal definition of masculinity to many people — thus, when he creates a movie that’s catered to a male crowd, people pay attention. Many of his works explore male fragility, whether it be “American Sniper,” the less well-received “J. Edgar,” or even “Jersey Boys.”

Eastwood has been with Warner Bros. for his entire career, so they have a fruitful partnership and know what to expect from each other. They can have him make an affordable, somewhat well-made movie with an old-fashioned sensibility, and he can trust them to market the movie that will put him and the film in the best light.

While “The 15:17 to Paris” did not necessarily light up the box office this weekend, there is reason to show lots of hope for this film moving forward.

Everyone will tell you all that matters for a movie is its opening weekend, and while this is true for most blockbusters, often times smaller movies and movies for older crowds have nice, long runs, prompted mostly by word of mouth. While I fear word of mouth might be an issue for this film, seeing that it was generally a low-quality film, there is evidence that Eastwood movies historically have great runs.

In box office lingo, there’s something called the multiple: a film’s total gross divided by its opening weekend. For a major blockbuster, you are happy with about 2.5, and for a film like this, you would want around 3. Looking at Eastwood’s past films, “Sully” registered a 3.6, “American Sniper” registered a 3.9, “Jersey Boys” registered a 3.5. Even “J. Edgar” rang in a 3.3.

Thus, while the opening weekend for “The 15:17 to Paris” was not hugely impressive at around $12.6 million, if it legs out to have a 3.3 multiple, it would end up around $40 million, which is perfectly reasonable for a mid-budget film such as this one that could have a long life on home video and cable.

Additionally, we saw the viewership increase from Friday to Saturday, meaning older audiences likely came out to matinees, and the word of mouth was not as poisonous as it could’ve been.

“The 15:17 to Paris” is far from a great film, but it is a masterclass of releasing a movie that fits the time and the schedule. Warner Bros. and Eastwood have one of the great partnerships in all of film history, and while this might be a slight blemish on their resume, this film did not have a lavish budget and will ultimately satisfy audiences who crave this sort of rah-rah patriotic content. In this time of franchises and sequels, it’s nice to see a modestly-priced studio movie succeed, even if it has its own artistic problems.

Published on February 12, 2018 at 10:02 pm