“Girl on the Train” was the most anticipated physiological thriller since “Gone Girl,” but the film wasn’t met with the quite same reaction from fans and critics. Though the movie effortlessly follows the same plot as the book, the depressed characters slow the action down. While the movie may not have lived up to everyone’s expectations, it was by no means a complete bust. “Girl on the Train” has some great redeeming qualities, including incredible performances and a fantastic music score.
The movie centers around three complexly related women: Rachel, an alcoholic obsessing over her ex husband, Anna, the woman who married Rachel’s ex husband, and Megan the girl in a seemingly “perfect” marriage.
The film is narrated by Rachel, guiding the viewers through a blurry, hangover-like plot. Emily Blunt does an amazing job in her role as the unreliable narrator, her only flaw being that she is a little too perfect. In the novel, Rachel is described as an undesirable, half version of her old self, which is hard to grasp with the beautiful Emily Blunt as Rachel.
Rebecca Ferguson and Erin Cressida are also positive aspects of the movie, both grounding the film despite its slow and predictable structure. Ferguson’s character, Anna, wasn’t particularly well developed but not because of any acting flaws. Anna’s role in the adaptation was simply flat and uninteresting, her only importance being her marriage to Tom.
We had really high hopes for the “creepy” aspects of “Girl on the Train,” but the violence and murder scene didn’t exactly reach the horror genre.
Overall, the plot was compelling and twisted, with a few shortcomings. If viewers weren’t so apt to compare “Girl on the Train” with “Gone Girl,” they might enjoy it a lot more, because sadly it didn’t live up to the comparison.
