The Girl on the Train (2016) - The Girl on the Train (2016) - User Reviews - IMDb
The Girl on the Train (2016) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
490 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
A Thriller with Great Potential and Cast, Wasted by a Poor Screenplay and Inadequate Direction
claudio_carvalho31 December 2016
Warning: Spoilers
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")
133 out of 198 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Emily Blunt worth an Oscar!
liorreem11 January 2017
I read some of the reviews here, and came with very low expectations to this movie, and WOW, what a pleasant surprise! Blunt gives here the show of her life, way above the level of acting in "edge of tomorrow". The story itself takes time to build but it all adds to the atmosphere, and finally you get a fair amounts of twists and turns. Bennett and Ferguson also acting very well, which all adds (to my opinion) to a great film. And to all the men that say it's a "men hating" film, I say that you really have a low self-confidence to come up with such a statement... I would risk to say it's one of my 2016 best films, and I will be surprised if Blunt will not be an Oscar nominee for this film.
114 out of 176 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
wayne-robb4 January 2017
I have been on IMDb for a number of years and always rate the movies i watch. I have not written many reviews,however i think i needed to write this one. This film is brilliant. I haven't read the book but the story was excellent and having read reviews i am disappointed with the negative reviews of this masterclass in story and film making. Do not be put off folks, this was a real thriller mystery and deserves a big 9.the acting was superb,and having been in a drunken state myself for a time they couldn't have put it more realistic. Enjoy its really good, please check my review scores before taking my opinion,i don't like crap as you will see.
164 out of 263 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Read the book. No, seriously, read the book, it's so much better than this
paulmcuomo6 October 2016
Warning: Spoilers
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.
178 out of 302 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Thriller that serves up a real mystery
bartonj24109 October 2016
We've all experienced the same monotonous train commute to work in our lives at some point. You go by the same places and see the same faces each and every day. None of us have quite had a commute that changes our lives quite like Rachel Watson in The Girl on the Train though.

Emily Blunt stars as Rachel Watson, an alcoholic divorcée who takes the same train to work each day. On her journey, Rachel fantasises about the relationship of Scott (Luke Evans) and Megan Hipwell (Haley Bennett), who live a few doors down from her ex-husband, Tom (Justin Theroux), and his new wife, Anna (Rebecca Ferguson).

Rachel's unstable state leads her on a downward spiral that sees her embroiled in a missing persons investigation that will change her life forever.

Based on the best-selling novel by Paula Hawkins, The Girl on the Train is a mystery thriller that reminded me of David Fincher's Gone Girl, which is not a bad thing at all. Now, while I don't think this is a better film than Gone Girl, I do think it serves up a worthy mystery that kept me guessing right up until the twist/reveal later on in the story.

The narrative is told from the point of view of the three main female characters; Rachel, Anna and Megan. It could have easily become quite convoluted and messy yet Erin Cressida Wilson's screenplay allows things to move along smoothly and without any confusion.

A lot of my hopes for this film were depending on the twist/reveal that would undoubtedly arrive in a mystery like this. Thankfully I can say that it was very well done and actually offered something totally different to what I was expecting. Yes, it gets a little far-fetched in the final act but if you go with it, The Girl on the Train really is a suspenseful watch.

Coming to the performances, The Girl on the Train features a great lead performance from Emily Blunt and a solid supporting cast, Haley Bennett and Rebecca Ferguson jumping on the paranoia train with Emily Blunt to great effect.

So, if you're a fan of either mysteries or thrillers, The Girl on the Train will be a journey you want to go on. If not, best to wait at the platform for the next train.
157 out of 267 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
danielharden11 October 2016
Warning: Spoilers
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.
127 out of 214 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Gone Girl without the tension, emotion or drama
Magic_Lantern5 October 2016
First off, I will admit that I've not read the bestselling book that The Girl on the Train is based on so my thoughts are based purely on the movie adaptation.

I usually love a fast paced thriller with twists and turns to keep me metaphorically on the edge of cinema seat. The trailers had led me to believe this might be the case for The Girl on the Train. How wrong I was.

The screenplay and direction were often sloppy while the editing was so messy it often felt like scenes were pieced together purely at random. I really struggled to warm to or identify with any of the characters in a film where all men are portrayed as controlling and deplorable and any sense of female empowerment is lost amidst the absurdity of the relentlessly twisting plot.

I have to call out Emily Blunt's stunning lead performance - she steals every scene she's in with a nuanced, conflicted and honest portrayal of a complex and intriguing character. Quality support performances from Luke Evans and Haley Bennet help but don't save the movie and most other characters are so slight and one-dimensional that they fade into the background.

The Girl on the Train felt like Gone Girl without the tension, emotion or drama.

161 out of 276 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
You won't uncork a bottle of Malbec again without thinking of this film...
bob-the-movie-man8 November 2016
Warning: Spoilers
"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 Thanks.)
77 out of 128 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Southern Rail provide more drama
lorriejinx13 October 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Saw the film two days ago. It started alright but just never really went anywhere in terms of drama, intrigue, pace, suspense or any of the key components of a murder mystery thriller. By the end of the film you just don't feel anything for any of the film's main characters. Having not read the book, I can't say whether the book is suspenseful but the film has less drama than the current Southern rail conductors strikes. When eventually the killer confronts Emily Blunt's character you really don't give a flying fig. The film makes me relish even more, wonderful murder thrillers like Jagged Edge, Seven, Fargo, The lives of others, Silence of the Lambs, and Basic Instinct.
88 out of 151 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Just read the book- please
Lilian-Muhsin23 November 2016
I've never written a review on here before but this was so incredibly disappointing. Every nuance and detail that sucked you into the story while reading the book has been erased and instead been replaced with cliché Hollywood hot actors continuously keeping at gratuitous eroticism when the original was a bleak and hollow tale about human relation. This entire film just tries so hard to be sexy and edgy as a marketing ploy I'm suspecting but this was a bona fide mess. The stiff acting, the weird casting ( the therapist- wtf?), the weird sexual undertones, and please let's not even begin to start thinking about the writing. Shallow, unrealistic, and lazy. Plain lazy. This was horrible. Read the book- trust me.
89 out of 153 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Kept Me Guessing
This is an excellent mystery/thriller that had me 'grasping at straws' for a solid hour or so, trying to figure out who was 'good' and who was 'bad.''s punctuated with a "killer ending!" (Yes, pun intended ~)

Plot in a nutshell: An alcoholic loner subject to blackouts (Emily Blunt) immerses herself in a missing-persons case in which she becomes a prime suspect.

(First let me state I have not read the novel on which this film is based. So my review and impressions are formed solely from watching the movie, where they should be. It seems most of the negative reviews here are from people who read the novel, then apparently watched this film with a notepad in hand, already knowing the story and the outcome but eagerly marking down every area that doesn't match the book, and then coming here to write negative reviews to vent about it. No offense to them (or you, if you are one of them), but the point here is to review the FILM - not to compare and contrast the film to the novel (or to anything else, for that matter). If you want to write a review of the book, go to and write it there! This site is for the film, and it's what I want to know about. All of these reviews on here telling me about the book, and then giving a poor rating because the film isn't exactly like the book, are irrelevant and out of place. Let's talk about the FILM....)

And yes, it's a very good one. Emily Blunt does such a masterful job of playing an alcoholic social outcast, I agree with some others on here wondering why she wasn't even nominated for an Academy Award. It's that good. She plays one of three women around whom the story largely revolves (Rebecca Ferguson and Haley Bennett are the others). These three are all loosely connected in various ways that are not obvious at first but, through flashbacks and story shifts, we are gradually shown how they tie together. One of the three goes missing and the plot then shifts to solving that mystery.

Saying much more than this will ruin the story so I'll draw the line there. But I will say I found this to be highly entertaining and was constantly shifting my opinion as to who was the guilty one. At one point I guessed right (as it turned out) but I changed my opinion based on what was happening, only to find out I had been right 20 minutes ago! But that's the beauty of this film - just when you think you've got it figured out, you are given a new shred of information that makes you question everything you'd accepted before. That's good story-telling and worthy of acclaim. It's not a stretch to say "The Girl on the Train" comes from the same mold as the Agatha Christie and Alfred Hitchcock classics. If you like those, you'll probably like this too.

8/10. Effective and intriguing mystery that deserves a much higher rating than it's current 6.5 here. Would I watch again (Y/N)?: Yes.
31 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
feminist cartoon
hdavis-2911 November 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Utter waste of time. The villain is an angry woman's ideal bad guy: he's a violent, disrespectful liar who "can't keep it in his pants." Quote. So once revealed, you know he needs killing. And in a gory, on-screen way. How about a corkscrew to the throat? Sounds perfect. And how 'bout a couple of his victims teaming up? Check. Sisterhood is beautiful. Guys are hideous. Sure sounds like the stuff that'll have them lined up at the box office. Maybe the book was good, but this film sure ain't. Is this a new generation chick flick or just a angry woman's revenge fantasy? According to IMDb figures, it's already covered production costs. Too bad. We don't need to inspire more "entertainment" like this.
84 out of 150 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Derails very quickly
TheLittleSongbird31 October 2016
The book is a terrific and engrossing read, with a lot of tension and suspense, a clear timeline and while the characters are unpleasant you understand why they are.

In comparison 'The Girl on the Train' is down there among the most underwhelming book-to-film adaptations, with everything that made the book so good being completely lost in translation in the film. However it also is a failure on its own terms as an overall film, one doesn't even need to have read the book or have knowledge of it to still consider 'The Girl on the Train' a disappointment. If anybody likes the film, that's absolutely fine and good for them, as a huge mystery-thriller fan this was one of the year's biggest letdowns while not quite being bad enough to be one of the year's worst.

Comparisons to 'Gone Girl', which has a similar tone and a couple of similar themes, and almost universally negatively is understandable and inevitable. Will try and keep the comparison brief, to me 'Gone Girl' is the vastly superior film, actually being a good, no great, film. It isn't perfect, faltering at the end with a conclusion that feels abrupt and illogical, but it's better made and directed (the direction was one of the best things about that film, while the direction here dooms this film), the "Cool Girl" monologue alone is much better than any of the dialogue in this film, that had tension, suspense, emotion and delicious black but subtle humour and Rosamund Pike's performance is one of that year's best performances and in the top end of the best Oscar-nominated performances of this decade.

What saves 'The Girl on the Train' from crashing and burning completely is the acting, which is terrific on the whole. The women do fare better than the men, though the men, with Justin Theroux being the most believable, are no slouches either. Emily Blunt's lead performance in particular is sensational. The exceptions though are Rebecca Ferguson, who looks lost with a character completely stripped of what made her interesting before, and Edgar Ramirez who comes over as annoying. Danny Elfman's score is one of his more understated and memorable ones in recent years, not his best work by any stretch but tonally it fits very well, being soothing yet unsettling.

However, Tate Taylor as director is clearly ill at ease with the dark material, because throughout it's stiff, indifferent and far too much of one mood. The story is a complete mess, with no tension or suspense whatsoever and plot twists that are introduced abruptly and are executed confusingly, even incomprehensibly, due to the lack of a clear time line and with little surprises. The pace really drags on constantly so the film is constantly as dull as dishwater and there is an overload of sex scenes that are also tasteless as well as being melodramatic with the subtlety of an axe. In the end, one doesn't care how it ends and the ending or the revelation of the culprit are not done particularly well. The culprit's identity is not that shocking and is revealed too early, and then the film meanders on for another half an hour when the film could easily have ended at the revelation.

Another huge let-down is the very soap-opera-ish, underwritten and very half-baked script, that doesn't do anything to develop the characters, who are nasty without explanation or reason to be so it makes them empty and very difficult to relate to their situations. The production design is good but wasted by the very made for TV way the film is shot and edited. Particularly bad is the haphazard editing.

Overall, doesn't completely crash and burn due to the acting (especially Blunt) and the score but derails very quickly and is a train-wreck on the whole. 3/10 Bethany Cox
129 out of 238 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
This is a real sleeper of a movie.
mikey-242-43576716 May 2018
I almost turned this movie off at 30 minutes. That's my cutoff time for bad ones. For some reason, I left it playing and kinda watched it. It was a very slow burn. The first 30 minutes were a snoozer. But then just after my cutoff time, the plot started moving forward. If you are going to watch this, plan on being bored for 30 minutes but the rest of the movie more than makes up for it. And you really have to watch it. There are so many entanglements that you won't know who is doing what to whom and why without really paying attention.

It is worth it. Don't want to give anything away but it has a real ending (unlike lots of modern movies) and it will satisfy you with the way it all comes out. You CANNOT predict the ending. You cannot see it from 30 minutes away. Just wait for it. It will justify your time spent (1 hour, 51 minutes).
39 out of 67 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Man-hating, depressing, and awful
justin_h_carter24 October 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Should movie be titled "Drunk Girl on the Train".

This movie is so man-hating only the most fanatic SJW could love it.

It is so depressing you might need meds afterwards. The characters are profoundly unsympathetic and miserable to watch.

Drunk Girl's plot is so full of holes it is laughably unbelievable. The movie can't seem to decide if it is in NY or the UK which only adds to the confusion. Rachel, the supposed hero of this movie is an alcoholic stalker who downs hard liquor all day while stalking people from her old neighborhood (her fav is stalking the neighborhood from the train). She calls her ex-husband's home constantly at all hours... but none of her victims seem to ever think to change their phone number or even block the calls? Rachel drops in uninvited to her ex's home from time to time and kidnaps a child from her ex's new marriage which the police are aware of this but Rachel is somehow still walking around a free woman? On top of that no one seems to even think about getting a restraining order against Rachel??? Her ex is a psychopathic murderer but somehow lets all this behavior slide? And then the ex-husband murders a neighbor nympho girl (a girl who abhors the thought of having kids) because the nympho girl is pregnant and wants to keep the baby (who truly could have been anyone's)? I wish I could un-watch it.
104 out of 202 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
attention grabber
pantickatarina25 August 2018
An interesting thriller. I never suspected who it was until the very end
14 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Twisty turny brilliance
robcronin-365658 February 2017
An avid movie watcher with high standards but this is the first time I felt compelled to write a review. I occasionally browse over reviews once I finish a movie to see what others thought, and maybe be filled in on subtle details I may have missed.

I was however disgusted reading a variety of reviews here of shallow minded people that not only put pieces of the puzzle incorrectly together, but couldn't appreciate the superb performance of the main roles.

**Don't listen reviews saying "The book was better** Rarely can a movie pack the punch of a book with hundred's of pages into 2 hour movie. To those that haven't read the book, we couldn't care less about details being changed in the movie.

It takes a while to get into the movie being that perspective's of multiple roles are shown to give full context. but it all gets neatly wrapped up for a climax at the end. Usually I like to pick apart flaws and poor acting but this was all believable and satisfying. It's a drama/mystery/thriller so you wont be finding any sunshine and butterflies here. Dark and sad is the theme.
38 out of 70 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
It Overcomes A Slow and Confusing Start And Becomes A Solid Movie By The End
sddavis6319 August 2019
To say the least, "The Girl On The Train" is a very dark movie. Unsettling. Confusing. Even baffling. There's an uneasy feel to this from the start. Something's off. Something's not right. Is this even reality, or is it a fantasy taking place inside the mind of a very disturbed woman? The disturbed woman in this case is Rachel (Emily Blunt.) She's an alcoholic and rides the same train every day, past the house where she used to live with her ex-husband. She sees their neighbours, and wonders about them and about their relationship. The female neighbour is the nanny to her ex-husband, his new wife and their baby. The movie mixes the story of all three (Rachel, Anna - the new wife, and Megan - the nanny) together. What drives it forward is that Megan has gone missing, and the question is what happened to her and who was responsible.

For a while I found this an unpleasant movie to watch. To be honest, I had to turn it off at about the half hour mark. It wasn't hitting home with me. But there was something about it that drew me back; I needed to see how this was going to turn out. In the end I was glad that I did. It overcomes the bleakness of the first half hour and although it still seems to walk the line uneasily between fantasy and reality, the mystery involved gets more and more engrossing, and the plot twist (you knew something had to be coming) happens with about a half hour to go - and it was, to me at least, completely unexpected. Not all is as it seems to be. The inter-twining of the stories of Rachel, Anna and Megan leads up to a sobering finish.

In the end I was surprised to discover that I was actually quite awakened from the slumber-inducing first half hour or so and really wanted to see how this was going to end. Emily Blunt's portrayal of Rachel was strong. The supporting cast was all right - I didn't think there were any outstanding performances aside from Blunt's, but it was Blunt's movie, and she pulled it off. It has to overcome that slow and bewildering first half hour, and it won't appeal to those who want a straightforward plot or who are put off by a movie with overtly dark tones. But by the time this was over I could honestly say that I was glad I watched it. (6/10)
9 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Well done, complex mystery
GandLNY19 February 2017
Well, I enjoyed this movie to the point I would watch it again to catch some of the nuances you miss during first viewing. The story is a bit complicated with several couples in overlapping relationships, but that makes it interesting. The actors are all good with real responses to the surprise events. Unveiling the main character's, Rachel, story in drunken snippets adds to the tension. Some other reviewers complain about plot points that don't make sense but, in some cases, it's because the reviewer did not understand the plot and the inter-relationships of the characters. Special credit to Emily Blunt and Haley Bennet for portraying the angst in their personal situations.
19 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Superb and amazing movie
mohdshafiulhaque14 January 2017
Emily Blunt totally deserves an applaud for her acting. She has delivered an masterpiece. This thriller is atmospheric and suspenseful, like the best-selling Paula Hawkins novel it's based on. Emily carries the weight of Rachel's alcohol dependency, an awful cocktail mixed with grief and self-hatred. Its heroes and villains are painted with a one-dimensional brush, either evil and angry, icy, or simply a big hot mess.

It almost feels like a lot of The Girl on the Train's potential was left on the cutting room floor, taken out for brevity or simplicity. But characters like these deserve complex treatment. And audiences need more than just the twist in the end if you want to leave them puzzling over a movie after the credits roll. What we get instead is an interesting enough, creepy enough experience.

An amazing directed and superbly acted movie.
26 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Waste of time and money !!
cvcsong212 October 2016
Warning: Spoilers
For a couple of months now , I have been seeing the trailer, of this film ..... And I was looking forward, to finally seeing it ! So, last night , a friend and I , had the misfortune of viewing ,The Girl on the Train ... To tell the truth , I've seen better mysteries on "Murder She Wrote " reruns !! Pathetic characters , nasty sex , thrown in every couple of minutes , and I for one, am SO sick of F this F that , every other word ! Personally , my contemporaries, and I do not use trashy language ,and we are sick of vulgar conversation ,in this and other films ,of recent years !, I guess next time ,I'll just stay home and watch TCM !! Great movies , with great plots , great actors and NO trash !! I seriously, would have left after the 1rst 45 min. , if I would have been alone !, Oh , and by the way , I would give this film an X rating ! May appeal to some .... But , no one that I know !!
70 out of 139 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
I liked it, even if mystery thriller is not my usual kind of genre
Chiller717 December 2016
I don't usually watch mystery thriller dramas - I generally only go to big budget action movies. I knew next to nothing going in about what this movie was about, which is probably the best way to go into this movie (so in this review I'm not going to discuss the plot at all, just how I felt about the movie - it's better this way). I knew Emily Blunt was in the movie and that it was based on a novel and that's really about this it. Despite all this, I actually liked this movie.

Who hasn't observed strangers from a distance and imagined our own life stories for them? What if we got lost in our own imagined thoughts and turned them into a dangerous obsession? It's an interesting premise on which to base a story.

The movie kept me guessing; it wasn't predictable. It had me feeling disturbed, engaged, sad, and cringing at the unfolding events. I guess this is exactly what you'd want from a mystery thriller.
52 out of 101 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
alcoholic divorcée gets into deep trouble.
bramaniblue1 November 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I thought the trailers to the film were done good. I found the movie in general boring, annoying and a waste of 2hrs. One thing for sure It proves that annoying drunks are really annoying and this annoying person had noting to do but ride a train drawing pictures waiting to pass by a house in the area where she used to live to see the occupants engaging in public displays of affection for one another. The short end, an annoying alcoholic gets her self involved in a murder investigation and just annoys the hell out of everybody until the end. Don't say I didn't warn you. And if you think my use of the word annoying annoyed you then ignore me and go see the movie.
35 out of 65 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Don't listen to anyone above a 6/10
aplangseth15 October 2016
I'm sorry but anyone rating this movie as above average must be really easy to please and I'm glad you get such easy satisfaction in life.

Now anyone looking to go and enjoy the book in movie form or if you haven't read the book and just want a good mystery, should look elsewhere. From the very start of the movie it was a disappointment. Let me list it out for you starting with the negatives:

1. The overzealous amount of tasteless sex scenes.

2. The location to change to the US which as an American I found stupid and unnecessary and insulting to Britain for a director to say that they aren't interesting enough or whatever for a movie to stick to the original book location.

3. The feeling of pure confusion and lack of organization.

4. The completely poor choices in casting, especially the therapist.

5. The confusion and lack of any clear cut direction through out the whole movie. The entire movie. It was impossible to follow.

6. The addition of details that weren't in the book that added nothing, the subtraction of details from the book that were actually quite important, and the changing of details that you wondered why they changed them other than to maybe irritate people that have read the book

7. The lack of anything to do with Anna and the amount they made Rachel more like an annoying idiotic drunk instead of like a drunk that just struggles due to alcoholism.

8. Their inability to follow the god damn timeline set out in the book. For the love of Jesus and all that is holy the timeline and organization through the book was pretty well laid out. What the hell were they doing.

9. Honestly it was terrible. It was so bad. I've never written a review before and it was not good. Even my friends that didn't read the book didn't enjoy it and they wished we'd seen something else.

10. Practically gave away the ending. It's a mystery. How the hell do you do that.


1. Emily blunt. She was kind of eh in the beginning of the book and I wasn't sure she was going to do well but once they stopped stressing the alcohol so much and she didn't have to act drunk she was better. Maybe she just sucks at acting drunk but overall the rest was a good performance.

2. I agree with one of the other reviews that the therapist was in there just the right amount. The book he is in there more and I don't mind that but his lesser emphasis in the movie still covered the better key points with him

3. The ending was right and thank god it wasn't that long of a movie
71 out of 143 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Misandrist movie #64, now with more absurdity!
manuelasaez7 October 2016
Warning: Spoilers
After seeing Gone Girl, I left the theater angry and a bit shaken. The movie reminded me how unfair our society is, where people can get away with accusing others of wrong doing, and ruin the lives of said people by just stating, "He did that to me!". It was a well made film that evokes the feelings of the times we are living in, where a persons belief and emotion is more important than facts and data. This film, The Girl on the Train, made me angry as well, but for all of the opposite reasons. Again, we have a film where the man is automatically the villain, and all of the women victims. This man-hating spectacle is intensified by having one man ultimately responsible for ruining the lives of not just one person, but 5! The women had nothing to do with it, they were all innocent, and none of them did absolutely nothing to deserve their fates.

I am sick and tired of these types of movies with an obvious feminist agenda, where men are always the bad guys and women the helpless victims. It only tells one side of the story, where one gender is exalted above the other, and it is not only dishonest, but insulting to its audience. No one was innocent in this tale, and unlike Gone Girl (where everyone admitted their wrong doings), the women of this film not only relished in their faults, but continued to exacerbate them by their repeated actions. It's a slap in the face to those of us out there that are good men, and would do anything for the person's we love. Emily Blunt is one of the finest actors of our time, and this movie deserves a higher grade simply due to her stunning and jaw-dropping performance. But I cannot, in good conscience, advise anyone to see this obvious misandrist tripe that only serves to further a simplistic and deviant belief that, "Men are Bad. Men hate women. Women are victims. Women should ruin or kill men who don't do as they say". If it all sounds neanderthal-like, it's simply because movies like these are made to appease a very specific group of people; people who don't expect to think when asked to, but only react to what they are told to react to. This type of film-making has no place in Hollywood, least of all cinema in 2016.

I am not an easily offended person, but after watching this film as a man, I am offended. Hollywood, you are failing men everywhere. You should all feel ashamed and think long and hard as to the messages you are vomiting into the world. Men are not your punching bags that you can repeatedly assault ad naseum to appease your entitled and mentally deranged audience. Not even Blunt could save this travesty of a film for me. I want my time and emotion back. You can keep the ticket price.
97 out of 202 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed