Don't get me wrong, all the props to the men for the role they actually played in the real life event. I would never take anything away from that. But this movie was a long, boring look at three school buddies, with only a passing nod to the actual event (the 'action' of which took about 15 seconds).
The first act is mostly their early life, where they accomplished, which shows them to be below-average children that may or may not have ADHD (this diagnosis was quickly dismissed by both mothers (one using religion and another by attacking the teacher. This diagnosis actually continues to make sense as you look further into their history, but I'm not a psychiatrist, just someone who actually -has- ADHD diagnosed later in life.)
The second act is the vacation trip that the three men take across Western Europe, starting I believe in Italy. The men don't speak the language and don't really understand the culture, looking for what single American young men look for in the modern age: Instagram shots, pretty women and beer. Again, the movie seems to take pride in showing that the 'heroes' are average or less.
The final act is the takedown of the lone gunman, who is portrayed as a one-dimensional figure with no past, no future, no name and very poor skills. He has an AK and a backpack (which we found out later was full of ammunition). He strips off his shirt (rationale totally ignored?) and comes out of the washroom, where the gun is immediately grabbed by the person just outside (this is itself pretty heroic, but again, ignored by Eastwood.) In fact, if this part of the film is accurate there's two American heroes (but only one of them was a main in the story), the person who grabbed the gun immediately (and got shot for his troubles) and the person who ran at the shooter (Incidentally, he would have been immediately gunned down if the weapon hadn't misfired). The other two hid back in their seats until the fight was well joined. Nobody was an expert, and the fight itself was poorly done by all involved.
Overall, this film seemed to be a clap for all those lonely sub-par men who never do much of anything in their life. It could have been so differently and so much better, if it absolutely be done at all. I'm guessing the movie was only made as a personal 'hurrah' to the fading-but-stellar career of Clint Eastwood.
The first act is mostly their early life, where they accomplished, which shows them to be below-average children that may or may not have ADHD (this diagnosis was quickly dismissed by both mothers (one using religion and another by attacking the teacher. This diagnosis actually continues to make sense as you look further into their history, but I'm not a psychiatrist, just someone who actually -has- ADHD diagnosed later in life.)
The second act is the vacation trip that the three men take across Western Europe, starting I believe in Italy. The men don't speak the language and don't really understand the culture, looking for what single American young men look for in the modern age: Instagram shots, pretty women and beer. Again, the movie seems to take pride in showing that the 'heroes' are average or less.
The final act is the takedown of the lone gunman, who is portrayed as a one-dimensional figure with no past, no future, no name and very poor skills. He has an AK and a backpack (which we found out later was full of ammunition). He strips off his shirt (rationale totally ignored?) and comes out of the washroom, where the gun is immediately grabbed by the person just outside (this is itself pretty heroic, but again, ignored by Eastwood.) In fact, if this part of the film is accurate there's two American heroes (but only one of them was a main in the story), the person who grabbed the gun immediately (and got shot for his troubles) and the person who ran at the shooter (Incidentally, he would have been immediately gunned down if the weapon hadn't misfired). The other two hid back in their seats until the fight was well joined. Nobody was an expert, and the fight itself was poorly done by all involved.
Overall, this film seemed to be a clap for all those lonely sub-par men who never do much of anything in their life. It could have been so differently and so much better, if it absolutely be done at all. I'm guessing the movie was only made as a personal 'hurrah' to the fading-but-stellar career of Clint Eastwood.
Tell Your Friends