The Girl on the Train

The nice technical aspects of the film successfully hide the story’s secret and the actors are pleasant to look at. But when said secret is revealed, The Girl on the Train becomes a superficial, dime-a-dozen thriller with zero originality, popular with cinema audiences thanks only to the fame of the book on which it’s based original. And thanks to David Fincher’s Gone Girl. (12/10/2016)

Yes, I know that Gone Girl was filmed better, but I liked The Girl on the Train a little more. The thing is, while watching this story, I didn't shake my head in disbelief as often, and I liked the way the film stayed grounded and didn't need to hurl one “surprising" twist after another at us. And although I know she's an excellent actress, I've never seen Emily Blunt act this great before. (28/02/2021)

The book was better, it went more in depth. The disappearance was better, more shocking. Too bad there was such a rush to get to the plot. If I didn't know the characters from the book, the introduction just wouldn't have been enough. The brief flashbacks are not enough of a source to get information about the characters' pasts. I liked the Rachel’s discovery, even though a simpler path was taken to get there compared to the book. I see this moment as the most emotional of the entire film. The acting was handled very well. I'm just annoyed that the train in the film was headed to New York instead of London. There's a hell of a difference between Britain and the States. (19/10/2016)

Creativity? If only! Gone Girl 2, but for a less sophisticated audience that hasn’t seen much and only knows Fincher from the train. Thanks to the novel it's based on, Girl on The Train has the potential to be a chilling and distinctive thriller, but that potential is nullified by a twist that anyone can guess halfway through the film. The other thing that doesn't work reliably is the editing and all the flashbacks and time jumping. Someone must have been under the influence of drugs, because it is very difficult for the viewer to piece together what, when, where, how, and anyway they explain it semi-literally and literally at the end, even though leaving loose ends would have been so much better. Emily Blunt gives a performance that makes you hope from the halfway point that she will take off her autumn coat, show her muscles and start doing good with a gun in her hand, but it doesn’t happen. (23/10/2016)

I like thrillers in a similar vein. That’s also the reason why I gave it one more star than the movie deserves. For most of the runtime, I was actually quite conflicted and I didn’t know what to think about any of the main characters that appeared in the movie. The movie had a strong source material by Paula Hawkins and so I rummaged through the past, the present, and subsequently also fiction and alternative facts. Eventually, the last half an hour, which had balls, started, and it explained a whole plethora of characters, which satisfied me quite a bit. Even though I predicted it a bit differently. Nevertheless, I must admit that there is something about this movie, and even though I spent 90 minutes as if under the haze of alcohol, it still managed to rise to a solid four-star review. (21/01/2017)