User Reviews

"The Girl on a Train" is the film adaptation of the best-seller by Paula Hawkins, transported from the London suburbs to New York's Hastings-on- Hudson.

It's actually rather a sordid story encompassing as it does alcoholism, murder, marital strife, deceit, sexual frustration, an historical tragedy and lashings and lashings of violence. Emily Blunt ("Sicario", "Edge of Tomorrow") plays Rachel, a divorcée with an alcohol problem who escapes into an obsessive fantasy each day as she passes her former neighbourhood on her commute into the city. Ex-husband Tom (Justin Theroux, "Zoolander 2") lives in her old house with his second wife Anna (Rebecca "MI:5" Ferguson) and new baby Evie. But her real fantasy rests with cheerleader- style young neighbour Megan (Haley Bennett) who is actually locked in a frustratingly child-free marriage (frustrating for him at least) with the controlling and unpredictable Scott (Luke Evans, "The Hobbit"). A sixth party in this complex network is Megan's psychiatrist Dr Kamal Abdic (Édgar Ramírez, "Joy").

In pure Hitchcockian style Megan witnesses mere glimpses of events from her twice-daily train and from these pieces together stories that suitably feed her psychosis. When 'shit gets real' and a key character goes missing, Megan surfaces her suspicions and obsessions to the police investigation (led by Detective Riley, the ever-excellent Allison Janney from "The West Wing") and promptly makes herself suspect number one.

Readers of the book will already be aware of the twists and turns of the story, so will watch the film from a different perspective than I did. (Despite my best intentions I never managed to read the book first).

First up, you would have to say that Emily Blunt's performance is outstanding in an extremely challenging acting role. Every nuance of shame, confusion, grief, fear, doubt and anger is beautifully enacted: it would not be a surprise to see her gain her first Oscar nomination for this. All the other lead roles are also delivered with great professionalism, with Haley Bennett (a busy month for her, with "The Magnificent Seven" also out) being impressive and Rebecca Ferguson, one of my favourite current actresses, delivering another measured and delicate performance.

The supporting roles are also effective, with Darren Goldstein as the somewhat creepy "man in the suit" and "Friends" star Lisa Kudrow popping up in an effective and pivotal role. The Screen Guild Awards have an excellent category for an Ensemble Cast in a Motion Picture, and it feels appropriate to nominate this cast for that award.

So it's a blockbuster book with a roller-coaster story and a stellar cast, so what could go wrong? Well, something for sure. This is a case in point where I suspect it is easier to slowly peel back Rachel's lost memory with pages and imagination than it is with dodgy fuzzy images on a big screen. Although the film comes in at only 112 minutes, the pacing in places is too slow (the screenplay by Erin Cressida Wilson takes its time) and director Tate Taylor ("The Help") is no Hitchcock, or indeed a David Fincher (since the film has strong similarities to last year's "Gone Girl": when the action does happen it lacks style, with the violence being on the brutal side and leaving little to the imagination.

It's by no means a bad film, and worth seeing for the acting performances alone. But it's not a film I think that will trouble my top 10 for the year.

(Agree? Disagree? For the graphical version of this review and to comment please visit bob-the-movie-man.com. Thanks.)

Two things.

Firstly, the "third man" was extremely predictable, and I mean from at least 50 minutes prior to the reveal. I hoped it wouldn't be that obvious but it was. Tom being the killer may be logical but it's also lame. This is supposed to be a mystery, not a 5-dime potboiler. I mean, come on... The guy shtooped the promiscuous nanny, not like it didn't happen a million times before. (Admittedly, he hired her as a nanny after the fact, which is an original touch.) It had to be him, and I mean even BEFORE someone mentioned a "third man".

Secondly, and this is the bigger drawback, the obligatory stoopid thriller ending had to (somewhat) ruin an otherwise good movie. Rachel does literally everything wrong, for example by going to Anna instead of reporting everything to the police once she realized she was innocent. Extremely predictably, Tom gets a chance to kill everybody who is in his way, which is pretty far-fetched, and a bit too much of a windfall for such a dumb, impulsive murderer. Both Anna and Rachel make all the convenient/contrived wrong decisions at the end, endangering their own lives. Still, even this situation he manages to botch.

Yup, crime thrillers films ALWAYS have to end dumb. Always. This isn't even a proper thriller, at least not the first 80 minutes aren't - it's a crime drama mystery - but once a Hollywood movie goes into thriller mode, watch out: you've just entered the Land of the Stoopid & the Far-Fetched, just in order for (dim-witted) audiences (who don't know better hence don't deserve better) can get a few cheap thrills before the credits roll.

Come on, that dumb scene with Rachel screaming "murderer!", banging at Tom's door. Sure, she's unstable, but must she be dumb too? You know what they say, "just because someone is crazy doesn't mean they're dumb".

Then again, the way the two women "jointly" kill Tom has a touch of originality about it, I have to admit, as does the fact that the two fierce rivals were united at the end.

Another nice touch is the irony of the "other woman" herself becoming the cheated wife who has to deal with a new "other woman", the next in line. It never ceases to amaze me whenever women get "promoted" from being the "other woman" to becoming the wife - then are shocked when the guy later cheats on her, repeating the adulterous pattern. Poetic justice, with a touch of absurdity: women being amazed that the same could happen to them.

There are some inconsistencies in the first 80 minutes, while this is still a mystery drama. The most glaring one: WHY would the shrink be at Meghan's house? He makes house calls? And how convenient for the two to hug just as Rachel is watching the house from the train window. Fine... Coincidences always find their way into such scripts, but this big coincidence is made even more implausible by the illogic of the shrink's presence at her home. And they hug in plain view of the neighbours? Not realistic. This is assuming Megan and the shrink didn't consummate their "affair", which the movie is - very surprisingly - not clear about.

Just as weird is that Rachel was able to observe so much detail from a moving train, which is at quite a distance from the houses she'd been spying on.

I am a bit peeved that the movie cheats its audiences by making us believe that Rachel was the violent loose cannon, instead of Tom. Sure, he lied to her about these things, about her alleged drunken violence which it turns out never happened, but this was shown in way that cheated the viewer, i.e. We never got a fair chance at having the whole picture. And yet, despite this "cheating" I (and presumably many other film-goers) were able to figure out that Tom was the killer.

Another wild coincidence is that Tom hits his ex Rachel at the exact day when Meghan reveals her pregnancy. To the movie's credit he didn't go out of his way to kill her right away after being told this, but simply told her to get an abortion and was on his way. Yet, somehow Meghan initiated a big fracas needlessly and even gets physical by pushing Tom, which of course leads to her demise. It's a bit much that Tom gets to attack two women within a short space of time, at the same day, especially since he isn't a serial-killer but a one-off murderer. But hey, these things are typical plot-devices in stories of this type.

The mystery is set up very nicely though, and the characterization and character motivations were almost - dare I say - elaborate and intelligent, especially for a modern-day American crime mystery. By all logic and odds, this should have been a far dumber film. Instead, Meghan's and Rachel's characters weren't one-dimensional but complex and fully explained. The female cast is quite above-average for modern-day American movies, so I have no complaints there at all. If it weren't, I'd have very probably skipped the film anyway because I have no more patience for lousy casting, thespianic incompetence, and unattractive female protagonists.

Normally, I don't watch these kinds of films, but I was mislead by the synopsis to believe this might have elements of fantasy. But it turned out alright, despite some flaws in an otherwise very solid script. The dialog and characterization were above average, some of the basic twists not so much.

The divorcée Rachel Watson (Emily Blunt) commutes every day to New York by train and watches the old house where she lived with her husband Tom Watson (Justin Theroux) through the window. Rachel is an alcoholic and sterile woman that frequently has blackouts and shares an apartment with her friend Cathy (Lura Prepon). Tom is married with Anna Boyd (Rebecca Ferguson) with the baby Evie. Their babysitter is Megan Hipwell that lives with her husband Scott (Luke Evans) in the same neighborhood in the suburb. Rachel admires Megan and Scott since she believes they are the perfect couple. However Megan is a promiscuous woman that has affairs with many men including her psychiatrist Dr. Kamal Abdic (Édgar Ramírez). When Rachel sees Megan kissing another man on the balcony of her house, she decides to have a conversation with Megan after drinking in a bar. However she has a blackout and awakens with bruises in her apartment. Soon she learns that Megan is missing and Detective Riley (Allison Janney) that is in charge of the investigation visits Rachel to interrogate her since the neighbors had seen an alcoholic woman wandering in the area. However Rachel does not recall what she did that night. Rachel decides to investigate the case and has dreadful discoveries about her life and Tom. Who might be the killer?

"The Girl on the Train" is a thriller with a good story but terrible screenplay. The characters are not well-developed and despite the great performance of the wonderful Emily Blunt, her character Rachel Watson is a complete mess. Megan and Scott Hipwell, Anna and Tom Watson, and Dr. Kamal Abdic are also one-dimensional characters. The non-linear screenplay could be better and better, but instead of suspense and tension, gives the sensation of a soap-opera. In the end, "The Girl on the Train" is a film with great potential and cast but wasted by a poor screenplay and inadequate direction. My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): "A Garota no Trem" ("The Girl on the Train")

(Big Spoilers) Directed smoothly by Tate Taylor, mystery/suspense movie "The Girl on the Train" doesn't break any originality margins, but it nicely entertains. In the jig-saw puzzle style, Taylor has Emily Blunt, Haley Bennett, and Rebecca Ferguson in a trio of decent performances. The story could be a bit overlong, and somewhat far-fetched in some character reactions and scenes, but I enjoyed the old-school mystery. You have to swallow disbelief in the idea that Blunt's character juxtaposes her recollections of how she acts. Alcohol is a ready-made explanation for this, but anyway, if you're looking to poke holes in the story, you could. And sometimes movies don't deserve the benefit of the doubt, but I found it more fun to just watch this one. 7/10

The Girl on the Train is a novel that kind of jumped up on the world, especially with the unbelievable success of the book and movie versions of Gone Girl. Since then, this sub-genre of Domestic Noir has exploded and it seems that every novel that can be compared to Gone Girl has been optioned for a film: this, and Renee Knight's Disclaimer had the film rights purchased before the novels were even released to the public! It's a bandwagon that needs to stop, because I cannot understand how this movie could've been so disappointing and poor as it is.

As an Englishman, the film's location shift did aggravate me a lot. It's one of those things that changes nothing but everything at the same time; the train system in London is a very different one to New York, where it's more underground based. But that's a setting thing, doesn't affect the movie as a whole. What does affect the movie is how viciously, and how insufferably BORING IT IS! Seriously, this film treats everything like its the most binal and uninteresting thing, in which all the characters talk in flat and monotone voices, and the fact that screenwriter Erin Cressida Wilson has removed so much of the kinks and human error from it. Add to this is that most of the characters are completely flat, with almost no backstory - the only real "backstories" being had by Megan and Rachel, more of those in a second - and this makes everything SO hard to sit through, or barely care when stuff happens. Tate Taylor, who made the excellent The Help some years ago, and directed his actors in that with such confidence and zest, makes me wonder why this movie is so lifeless, and why he struggled to direct his actors in this with any human qualities to them. It's like he is trying to out-Gone Girl Gone Girl, but the problem with that is that David Fincher is clearly more adept at darker material; the way Fincher accentuates moments of extreme pivotal violence, like Amy's murder of Desi, or gives a clear indication of where/when stuff is happening, or made the only real monster of the movie Gone Girl Amy, and made the others human but just flawed in some way. Everyone here is just nasty, in some way, but in such unremarkable ways - or ways that are made to feel unremarkable, such as Rachel inserting herself into Scott Hipwell's life after his wife is murdered.

OK, Rachel's backstory is quickly glossed over; she was unable to conceive, so she began her spiral into alcoholism. That's it for her, and Emily Blunt, who is at her best when portraying characters being slowly broken down by life, does her best, but as stated, there's really no humanity to Rachel, so alas is all blowing into the wind. Megan, played by Haley Bennett, is by far the most tragic character, and that is because we can see how irreparably damaged she is from the death of a baby she conceived at a young age, to the point where she ends up in the situation that gets her killed. And Anna? Yeah, she's just there, she does nothing short of providing a good ending for Rachel, but all of her vindictive attitude is removed from the book, and so Rebecca Ferguson looks completely lost and is easily the weakest of the 3 main characters. Luke Evans tries, but is stumped by the absurd amount of sex scenes him and Bennett are involved with and an absence of character beyond that. And Justin Theroux as Tom is just a nasty guy; now, in the novel he's a nasty guy, but he was a nasty guy with a past, and in this he has no past.

Really, in the end, Blunt and Bennett tried. Thumbs up for that. This movie however is just jumping on the Gone Girl bandwagon, but not taking the effort or care that movie took with its material. Just...just read the book.

What could you do with the power to create another person's memories? Perhaps make them remember you as always wonderful or themselves as always hopeless. This unusual premise runs through The Girl on the Train (2016), its plausibility resting on the victim being in such an alcoholic haze that their regular blackouts become blank mental spaces to be filled with memories chosen by someone close. This twisted relationship between memory and truth filters the story in ways that produce a novel viewpoint in a traditional thriller.

Rachel's alcoholism started when IVF failed and it eventually ended her dream marriage. She lives off her alimony and spends her time as a train passenger voyeur who watches other people in fantasy worlds while she sips vodka out of a sports bottle. Every day she rides past her former neighbourhood just gazing out windows and she becomes fixated on a couple that appear to have everything. When she notices a new man on the scene she is driven compulsively to explore what happened. In the process, we become witness to a triple set of simmering relationships that turn dangerous when a babysitter's body is found gruesomely buried nearby. Rachel is implicated when, unable to account for her whereabouts, she becomes a murder suspect.

Constant inebriation makes an unreliable narrator and Rachel's hold on reality regularly dissolves while frequent flashbacks create disorientation amidst the detail of who is being unfaithful or untruthful with whom. The narrative structure is both complex and well-constructed. It is like a jigsaw puzzle being assembled by first laying out the most distant pieces in isolation, then randomly laying out more on the board's periphery. All the time we are uncertain whether Rachel is sane or sozzled as, one by one, clues about what happened on the night of the murder are laid out with surgical precision in the finest tradition of a Hitchcock thriller.

Emily Blunt's performance drives this film despite the incongruity of her unexplained Britishness in America. A drunk narrator does not readily earn audience sympathy, but Rachel's pained eyes and mournfulness are engaging. The soundtrack adds a psychological thriller edge to a well-paced tale despite Rachel's permanent introspection. While the film has a strong support cast, no other character is developed beyond a two-dimensional persona in what is a female-driven story with a spectacular finale of feminine vengeance. The last piece of the jigsaw drops in with a satisfying thud.

Based on a best selling novel and with a huge marketing campaign to back the film, The Girl On The Train oddly became one of the most anticipated films of the Autumn to Christmas period... But instead of being the Guardians of the Galaxy of this period the film fairs as well as this years Suicide Squad. The Girl On The Train is absolutely terrible and I feel rather sorry for Emily Blunt who I feel is left alone trying to salvage this wreckage.

The film is so melodramatic that it is physically exhausting. The script is I feel mainly to blame as many lines, especially Megan's, feel extremely pretentious and I can't help but roll my eyes almost every time someone speaks. Not only is the dialogue over the top but the characters are written in such an unlikable way and the story's progression is simply boring with one or two exceptions. I also took issue with some of the plot points but I am unaware if this fault lies with the book itself, or the film has adapted it and executed it in such a poor way... I think I'll give the book the benefit of the doubt and stick to the film as this must have been a Best Selling Book for a reason.

The characters in this film are extremely unlikable to the point that anything they say or do annoyed me. The frustrating thing about these characters, and this is again Megan's character mainly, is that they are often perfectly happy and fine but seem to go out their way to screw their lives up (with the obvious exception of Rachel). Megan was a huge issue for me as she had a seemingly happy life, she worked in galleries and with children and had a husband who loved her... But she just has to sleep around with the entire male cast to the point that you feel exactly what Rachel felt when she saw her from the train. Megan's character is rage inducing and for that I simply didn't care if she was alive or dead but instead wanted to give the culprit a medal... But even the culprit is a frustratingly irritating ass.

The best thing about this film by far is Emily Blunt's acting. I would call it the films saving grace but this film is far from saving. Blunt's performance of an alcoholic, voyeuristic, lonely woman who takes the same train everyday to watch the "perfect couple" is great. Of course the lines she is given aren't that great and her character is again irritatingly stupid I'm surprised Alison Janney didn't wack handcuffs on her, but as the plot thickens so does your understanding of her character and so she is excused. As I said earlier I feel rather sorry for Blunt who is tasked with holding the whole film together, but it sadly isn't enough even though she tried so hard and got so far, in the end it didn't even matter.

Overall, The Girl On The Train is one of the worst films of the year in my opinion. The Suicide Squad of the Autumn - December movie season. Emily Blunt tries her best but it isn't enough to save this melodramatic mess. Fan's of the book I'm sorry if I offend and I'm sure the book is good and worth the time to read... But the film is simply not worth the 112 minutes and the anger it generates. Stand aside Amy Schumer this film is the real Trainwreck.

By titling the book and movie "The GIRL on the Train" and making Rachel the narrator/protagonist, the audience is fooled into thinking this is Rachel's story, when really it isn't. This is TOM's story, and how his selfishness and single-minded pursuit of his own wants and desires ruins other people's lives. So here's a summary of the story, when you retell it from Tom's perspective: Tom wants the stereotypical perfect suburban life with the stay-at-home wife and 2.5 kids. He marries Rachel, but it turns out she can't give him children. So rather than adopt (because they wouldn't be "his" children, which I believe the book did point out), Tom starts cheating on Rachel and lets her become a raging alcoholic. Tom divorces Rachel, leaving her life a total shambles, and moves on to marry Anna, who promptly produces the baby he wants. When Anna then starts to focus on the baby rather than Tom, he starts ANOTHER affair with Megan (because of course, it's still all about Tom and what he wants). Unfortunately for Megan, who doesn't want children because of a trauma in her past, she becomes pregnant with Tom's child. Well, Tom can't have a pregnant mistress ruining his "happy" marriage with Anna, so he murders the inconvenient mistress. And that, in a nutshell, is the real plot line of this story. So what is the role of the girl on the train, other than to be the discarded, barren first wife who turns to alcoholism to deal with the loss of her husband and home? In an act of karma, she gets to witness (from her train) a piece of evidence which draws her into Megan's disappearance/murder and ultimately bring Tom to the justice he so richly deserves.

Ah, the private torment of the 'secret' alcoholic - which really isn't a secret at all, which makes things even worse, and has you reaching for the Vodka. Emily Blunt is excellent as Rachel Watson, the main character, in this terrific adaption of Paula Hawkins' successful debut novel of the same name. The skin-crawling description of Watson's daily nightmare is recreated with equal relish here by director Tate Taylor. The moving of events from recognisable English suburbia to America works a lot better than I had anticipated, helped by a cast of actors from both sides of the Atlantic.

Happily, Blunt's excellence does not exist in isolation. The ex-husband, the other woman, the other other woman, her ex and the splendid DS Riley (Allison Janney) all utterly convince as a nest of truly flawed characters. Their rough edges keep things interesting and stop events ever sinking into the melodrama they might otherwise have done. Watson's hapless stumbling leads her into and out of trouble, her condition never allowing us to take too seriously any of her wilder accusations. Which is interesting, as some of them may be true ...

A fascinating drama then, beautifully shot, both as an adaption and in its own right.