Rachel Watson (Emily Blunt) is infatuated by the seemingly perfect couple she sees from her daily commuter train that runs past their house. One day she sees something shocking and in that moment, everything changes. Driven by intrigue and obsession, Rachel has a chance to become a part of the lives she's only watched from afar, but to what lengths will she go to uncover the truth?
Emily goes acting, again with effect.
- The Girl on the Train review by NC
(1) of (2) members found this review helpful.
You rated this film: 3
Read the book, but could not remember much. Quite well crafted film, and Emily does the biz again in the acting department. Almost done like a stage-play in some ways. The scenes are quite tight. Something a bit different for sure..............
Awful, confusing, misandrist, old-fashioned, tedious film riddled with plot holes
- The Girl on the Train review by PV
(0) of (1) members found this review helpful.
You rated this film: 1
This is one of the worst films I think I have ever seen.
I don't know what is worse - Emily Blunt's massive over-acting (chuck the girl a ham hock!). The woefully confusing flask-backy plot - not helped by the way the 3 women featured look almost identical. The self-righteous misandry where all men are cartoon character villains or morons. The feminist preaching in which all female characters are lovely and cuddly and innocent (despite doing what they do).
The plot holes riddle this as in a Swiss cheese - the worst of them is the fact a simple DNA test would have made this movie 30 minutes long! Yet no cop seems to know DNA exists.
It's apparently based on a novel by a woman, screenplay by a woman, directed by a woman. No surprise there then. The whole thing is a manhating wish fulfilment movie - if men made a film that showed women like that, they'd be called misogynists. Ergo, this movie is misandrist. It could have been made by mediocrities are some women's studies department. Maybe it was.
It's also deeply boring and the plot is unbelievable. It's like some trashy 1950s moralistic melodrama - reminds me of Ira Levin's first novel actually. Deeply old-fashioned and dull, I am glad to say the woman who watched the film with me agreed with every word I said too.
No stars at all. The worst movie I have seen for ages - it's so smug and self-satisfied you want to give it a good slap and tell it to grow up!
Emily Blunt gives an outstanding performance
- The Girl on the Train review by PT
(0) of (1) members found this review helpful.
You rated this film: 5
Emily Blunt is phenomenal in this role, a bona fide tour de force.
Blunt plays Rachel, an alcoholic who is heartbroken by her failed marriage. She is so convincing as a tormented soul that her performance alone is worth the admission price. Having said that though, this is a great mystery thriller with stella performances all around.
Commuting daily to New York city Rachel fantasises about a couple she observes through the train window. This aforementioned couple live in the street where she used to live with her husband, who still occupies the premises with his new wife and baby.
She witnesses something concerning the couple she has built an idealistic life for in her addled mind, leading her to take a path thwart with danger.
If Emily Blunt doesn't win an Oscar in the future, I'll eat my hat and hat stand honest to God. Terrific stuff.
The Girl on the Train is the type of mystery that asks, nay, begs you to overlook its own character flaws in favor of its twisty plot. It’s a picture based on a popular book that I have not read, but, based on this movie, my impression is that it was a thick paperback sold at airport bookstores. Readers were most likely so engrossed by this mystery of who killed who, who was cheating on who and who is pregnant with what person’s child; so engrossed they forgot to ask if they should care about the people the story follows. But, for all I know, this is just a horrible adaptation.
I suppose we’re supposed to care about Rachel Watson (Emily Blunt), an unemployed, recently divorced drunk that spends her days drinking on a train and envying the lives of others. Nothing particularly interesting is happening in her life which leads her to taking an interest in stranger Megan (Haley Bennett). But Megan is no stranger as she’s the nanny and neighbor of Rachel’s ex-husband Tom (Justin Theroux). On one fateful day of spying on Megan, Rachel discovers that this woman is cheating on her husband and decides to run up to her and call her a whore. Again, nothing else going on in her life. She blacks out after the incident in her apartment with her head and shirt bloodied. And now Megan is dead. Could Rachel have killed someone in her drunken haze of spying on other people?
There’s a whole mess of clues and suspects she has to sift that I’m surprised a drunk could wade through, even when she starts sobering up. Megan had an abusive husband and cheated on him with a therapist. Tom’s current wife had a bit of a tiff with Megan because of how much she hates their baby. Megan doesn’t want another child, but is discovered pregnant when her body turns up. And was Tom cheating on his current wife with another woman?
This is all rather stirring, but consider the characters at play in this mystery. All the female characters are downers that spend all their free time drinking wine, spying on others or having meaningless, emotionless sex. Megan spends most of the movie appearing more as a character from Sin City than a New York suburb, calling herself a whore and talking an awful lot about sex she hates. All of the men in their lives are mean, abusive, cheating and mentally destructive. They’re much more suited to Sin City as well.
In an attempt to awaken the movie from its soap opera plot and pacing, the third act turns bloody. Characters are mercilessly beaten to a disturbing degree where this may as well just have been a horror picture. The movie even slips out who the true killer is in the second act by process of elimination, leaving me waiting for the eventual wheels to turn. And once they turn, they’re gunked up with blood. The true killer in this movie has such a lacking motivation that it makes me pine for those trashy BBC mysteries where the killer always wants a deed or to stop a business deal. The killer’s motive in this movie? Just being a terrible person, which isn’t a spoiler since nobody in this picture is likable.
I think what I despised most about The Girl on the Train was how it attempts to rationalize Rachel’s behavior. She wasn’t breaking and entering into Tom’s home to pick up his baby because as she puts it “the door was open” and “I just wanted to hold the baby.” She’s not a bad character who has to change because of one of the worst surprise twists that absolves her of developing herself into a better person. She doesn’t have time to fix herself when there’s a murder she can solve. Maybe she figures her drunken nature is the key to discovering and solving mysteries, which is very likely considering she is back on the train by the end of the movie. Only this time she sits on the opposite side where she can’t see suburban homes. Baby steps, I suppose.