User reviews

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.' And...it'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 Goodreads.com 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.

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)

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.

Girl on the Train revolves around a girl, Emily Blount, and a train she takes back and forth to NYC each day. This girl has a problem - she's an alcoholic. She also has an obsession with her past life, her ex, who went on to re-build his life after his relationship with Blount failed.

The movies focuses on 4 people: ex-husband, his new wife Amy, his ex wife Rachel (blount), and neighbor Megan. Various other characters work their way into key parts of the story too. Rachel is never sure of what is real vs what is not because her drinking led her to various blackouts. Flashbacks give you glimpses, but again, what's real vs not?

The Director did a masterful job of building as much intrigue and second guessing as possible. But if you are paying attention, you start having a pretty good idea of what is going on after a certain point. Then it's just a race to the inevitable conclusion.

The movie is not confusing as I've read in some comments. You are being given different theories about what is going on, and it's up to you to dig thru it all, which makes this a decent psycho thriller. Throw in a psychologist to mix things up and you start wondering even more.

The movie succeeds because Blount is absolutely outstanding as Rachel. What a terrific acting performance by her - You feel all her emotions and wonder throughout what really happened, till things clear up a bit.

There is some nice cinematography of the Hudson river. I loved the way the Director used the train to create snapshots of lives. It really mimics our own lives as we see bits and pieces of others, and wonder what they are doing.

Very satisfying movie. Buy a ticket for the Girl on the Train, and enjoy.

I watched this straight after the book and I think reading the book first was a big mistake (the book was brilliant!). They cut out so many parts of the book which made their personality traits believable and to understand why they were the way they were and actually feel empathy for the characters. I think the film wouldn't have been such a disappointment for me if the book wasn't such a page turner, so if you've already read the book - don't bother with this film.

In practically four out of five reviews for "The Girl on the Train" I encounter, there's a comparison made with "Gone Girl". Understandable, of course, since both movies are based on recent best-selling novels by female authors, and moreover both stories are narrated by a female protagonist that isn't at all trustworthy and/or good-hearted. Other acceptable, but slightly less relevant, reasons for the comparison include that both films have stellar casts in front, and gifted directors behind, the cameras. Tate Taylor perhaps doesn't play in the same league as David Fincher just yet, but "The Help" left quite an impression already, and this one does too.

This is the tale of three women. Rachel is a painfully derailed alcoholic who cannot accept the failure of her marriage and the loss of her beautiful house in the suburbs. Anna is the new wife of Rachel's ex-husband Tom, and mother of the child Rachel couldn't give him. Megan is Anna's neighbor and nanny, and she struggles with mental problems and her secretive past. Throughout the film, there are many more elements that connect these three women. Rachel commutes daily to New York and passes by the houses of Anna and Megan. She hasn't met Megan personally but imagines her as the ideal woman living the perfect life. When she sees Megan with another man on her porch, her fantasy-scenario collapses, and she's infuriated by a woman she doesn't even know. But when Megan goes missing the next day, Rachel sees it as her duty to investigate. Small detail, though, can she exclude herself as a suspect?

It must be said "The Girl on the Train" quickly becomes rather predictable. Especially if you have some experience with watching or reading similar urban thrillers, it's rather easy to figure out the twists and mysteries. Luckily this isn't a blocker to enjoy the film, because the performances are fantastic and because Taylor nevertheless manages to maintain a high level of suspense and continuous uncomfortable atmosphere.

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.

From the start to the ending i could not take my eyes away from the movie. I was in some sort of trance. I could feel the pain that the caracteres felt. I was blown away how the movie was construted.

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.

An interesting thriller. I never suspected who it was until the very end

Taking a thoroughly English story and turning it into an American one always hurts the original tone. But the story is so rich and powerful that you can't really do too much damage.

I'd say the best part about the film is Emily Blunt. Even though she uses her own English accent in the movie, she sounds like someone who has lived in the US for quite some time, and it probably would have made more sense for her to have an American accent. If they changed the setting and all the other characters to American, why not do the same with the protagonist? That being said, she was absolutely perfect for the role. She was consistently sad and droopy and was perfectly convincing as the alcoholic, depressed Rachel.

The rest of the story played out as it did in the book. But the truth is, I couldn't put the book down, which doesn't happen very often. So apart from Blunt's acting, and the mysteries surrounding her character's blackout drinking during the night of a girl's murder, the film doesn't do too much for me.

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).

I do occasionally read something from the best-seller lists. This one intrigued me because of the amount of time it sat at number one. After finally reading it, I felt pretty fulfilled. It is a true page turner, and the way it is put together works quite well. The characters are at the center, but in this one there seems to be only a single one given any depth. Emily Blunt's Rachel is a scattergun of craziness and chemical abuse. Having familiarity with the book and already knowing what would happen, she became my focus. The portrayal is quite good and she is a wonderful actress. That said, the rest is a kind of cardboard piece with people moving around her to "advance" the plot. None of them are really that interesting. The psychiatrist is played with little verve. Allison Janney's police officer, who is pivotal in the book, could have been anyone. This was disappointing because I believe her to be quite a good performer (I think of "The West Wing"). There is really little suspense leading up to a made-for-TV conclusion. I have little knowledge of the art of screen writing, but other than watching things play out, I left with very little to talk about. Again, it's frequently unfair to compare a book to a movie, but this book was fuel for a much better film.

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

Decent movie. Dark story line. But I never got chills or felt on the edge of the seat. I wanted more from it. More shocking twists and more trillers. Overall it was a decent movie and it had my attention and the acting was good.

The girl on the train (2016) - Having heard good things about the book I watched this fully expecting a real gripping thriller, but i was wrong. It is very slow and boring for the first part of the movie and takes awhile to get into something worth watching.. Its a good story with an exciting plot but just didn't work for me. Nevertheless it was watchable and enjoyable in parts but failed to excite me like a thriller/mystery should.

I just watched this movie and will have to admit that the screenplay was just average. The pacing was a bit slow and it was not that hard to guess who was really responsible for the tragedy, so don't expect a true mystery. Character development was also lackluster and barely has enough depth to form an attachment with a character (unless you're an alcoholic too). I'll also have to admit that the entire backstory is quite unrealistic assuming that it takes place in the modern world. Typical suburban families are the more "casual" type, but this story paints it as if the man in the family works for a mafia. Overall, there just was not enough substance to have any sort of meaningful lasting impression. However, it was watchable and I found the story to be compelling enough.

So while I do think this movie is far from being a masterpiece, it's quite ridiculous to hate on it just because you personally interpret it as having a "feminist agenda" of some sort. If that is the only message you've got from the movie, then it's sad to say that you're merely judging the movie from your own misguided belief that "male antagonism = bad", and not from the actual reasons of why it's bad.