Skip to main content

The Girl Just Missed the Train


          The Girl on the Train is another mystery thriller novel-turned-movie following on the heels of 2014’s Gone Girl. It’s not as good as that movie, but is this adaptation of the best-selling novel by Paula Hawkins compelling enough?
          Rachel (Emily Blunt) is a depressed, jobless alcoholic who often blacks out, leaving blank spaces in her memory where she’s unsure of her actions. It’s this that led to her divorce from her husband Tom Watson (Justin Theroux) who’s now married to Anna (Rebecca Ferguson) and they have a young child. Every day, Rachel commutes to New York by train, passing by her old neighbourhood where she watches neighbours of Tom and Anna’s, Megan (Haley Bennett) and Scott Hipwell (Luke Evans), who she imagines must have the perfect relationship. But those presumptions aren’t quite what they seem. When Megan, who coincidentally works for the Watsons, goes missing on the same night Rachel wanders into that neighbourhood and blacks out, she wonders if she might have something to do with the disappearance.
          The plot is presented through three points of view: Rachel’s, Anna’s, and through flashback, Megan’s. And this structure though useful and necessary to relate important plot points, doesn’t work as well in film as it would in a book. We have to keep in mind if something important is dropped in a Megan flashback, Rachel in the present doesn’t know about it. The story doesn’t flow steadily when we’re being taken out of the linear progression at various intervals, especially when in those detours we’re privy to information that puts us ahead of the protagonist. This gives the film a feeling of sluggishness as we have to wait for Rachel to catch up. That doesn’t necessarily mean it should have been construed differently, considering some reveals in the flashbacks or in Anna’s storyline can’t be brought up earlier than they are. It just comes off as unfocused. The black-outs though are a believable way to keep Rachel in the dark and allow the audience to question her reliability. It’s one of those great scenarios where you don’t know who to trust and anyone can be a suspect. Like any good mystery. But unlike any good mystery, the writing isn’t very strong, especially some of the voice-over narration. There are a number of moments you can tell are lifted straight from the book. Rachel’s and even Megan’s reflections or descriptions can be wordy and needlessly opaque which drag down the visual experience.
          Emily Blunt though is good in this role, portraying the pathetic nature and mental instability of her character with great dedication. One of the films’ stronger assets is its depiction of alcoholism, the repercussions of black-outs, and the damage it does to one’s life. Rachel is the saddest character I’ve seen in a film in a while and in spite of everything, you root for her to kick the addiction. Moments where she accepts a beer only a few scenes after being seen at an AA meeting, or when she fills a water bottle with vodka are thus really dispiriting. You buy her confusion when the cops question her about the incident but then also her interest in getting involved in the case due to her probably unhealthy attitude towards the Hipwells. Megan is also an interesting character as you find out more about her past and Bennett plays it well. The rest of the cast is fine too, but Anna, Tom, Scott, and Dr. Abdic (Edgar Ramirez) are more-or-less typical suspect characters in a story like this. 
          This isn’t the most creative kind of mystery: you know most of the characters have secrets, someone’s having an affair, and so on. The final reveal is foreseeable if not entirely obvious. However if you’ve seen or read enough of these mysteries you’ll be able to guess the right person. This is also a movie that goes into a few dark places with a couple of the reveals. That being said, there are are a number of reveals and details in the end that don’t add up, and the resolution didn’t go in the direction it should have. In actuality, it overcompensates.
          If you’re looking for the next Gone Girl, The Girl on the Train definitely isn’t it. The pay-off isn’t very satisfactory if you know these kind of thrillers and the structure’s fairly incoherent. If you just want a mystery that’ll keep you intrigued for a couple hours with some decent performances, you may like it fine. But if you want a thriller that’s more investing, there are plenty of better movies or books to choose from.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...
Post a Comment
Read more