The 15:17 to Paris isn’t really an original Eastwood story. But it’s easy to see what would attract him to this real-life tale about three ordinary Americans, two of them off-duty soldiers, foiling a possible terror attack aboard a train in 2015.

This over-reliance on dialogue means two things happen: There is a lot of talking, and almost all of the words spoken in this movie have the subtlety of an assault rifle. What makes this experience all the more aggravating is that there was no reason for Eastwood to do this. Presumably, his intentions, whatever they might be, would still have remained intact had he used professional actors, like he has, on numerous occasions in the past.

Contrast this to a film like United 93 which is a masterpiece in the genre that this film explores – because unlike Eastwood, Paul Greengrass focuses on character and tension rather than jingoistic overtones even with a no name cast. In this film Eastwood declares an ‘it was meant to be’ undercurrent into the incident, portraying the three heroes as angels who were part of a mystic prophesy to thwart the Islamic infidels.

Walking out of the theatre, you get the distinct sense that the three boys had been cheated out of what was a glorious chance to get their story told on screen and reap the plaudits that they rightly deserved.