Film Review: ‘The Girl on the Train’

The Girl on the Train Sony
Courtesy of Sony Pictures

Emily Blunt excels as the broken-down heroine of Paula Hawkins' bestseller: a fragmented thriller soap opera of sex, booze, violence, and postfeminist empathy.

It sounds twisted to put it this way, but a major reason we go to the movies (film noirs, gangster dramas, adulterous romantic thrillers) is to live out vicarious fantasies of taboo behavior. The plot of a movie matters (sort of), but in another way it’s just an excuse. Sitting there in the dark, gazing up at the screen, we want to be that clandestine lover, that danger junkie, that grandiose addict-victim, that seeker of crimes of passion. “The Girl on the Train,” an adaptation of Paula Hawkins’ prismatic but heavy-breathing 2015 bestseller, is at heart a murder mystery, yet in many ways that’s the film’s most routine aspect. The director, Tate Taylor (“The Help”), stages it as a series of voluptuous vignettes in which three women, who all reside in the idyllically posh and leafy New York suburb of Ardsley-on-Hudson, lay bare their forbidden yearnings and secret inner lives. As a big-screen thriller, “The Girl on a Train” is just so-so, but taken as 112 minutes of upscale psychodramatic confessional bad-behavior porn, it generates a voyeuristic zing that’s sure to carry audiences along.

The title character, Rachel Watson (Emily Blunt), is a complete wreck — and from the start, that’s one of the fantasies that’s being played out. (You will know what it is to hit rock bottom!) When we meet her, she’s riding the train back from Grand Central Terminal in Manhattan, fixating on a woman she doesn’t even know — Megan Hipwell (Haley Bennett), an elegant cornfed blonde standing on the second-floor balcony of her splendid rustic home, just across the train tracks, looking like the woman who has it all. Rachel is the woman who lost it all. She was married to Tom (Justin Theroux), a protective shark, and they were in the middle of launching the perfect suburban existence, but she couldn’t get pregnant, and that’s when the drinking started. In flashback, the movie shows us tantrums, rages, blackouts, all of which have delivered Rachel to the identity she occupies now: an isolated divorcée, sitting on the train guzzling cheap vodka out of her designer water bottle. She’s a pretty far-gone alcoholic, and Blunt, in a perilously effective performance, plays her with a cold, slack woe that makes it look as if her facial features are slowly coming apart.

Rachel has no idea that Megan, the object of her identification, has any connection to her. But oh, are they connected! Everyone in “The Girl on the Train” is connected, to the point that the movie has a turbulently incestuous small-town-soap-opera quality. Think “Peyton Place” as staged by the Adrian Lyne of “Fatal Attraction.” It may be intentional that the characters even kind of look alike. Megan, a former fixture on the art-gallery scene, with an untamed wild streak (and therefore bored as hell as a trophy wife in the ‘burbs), has been working as a nanny for Anna (Rebecca Ferguson), who has the same angelic locks and confectionary skin tone. It’s part of the film’s deadpan if not quite satirical vision that they seem to belong to the same tribe of postfeminist Stepford princesses.

Anna is the woman who stole Rachel’s husband (she’s living the life Rachel wanted to), and it has driven Rachel cuckoo with self-hatred. Blunt’s performance is a masochistic revel, but she’s such a tender and lyrical actress that she makes even Rachel’s lowball actions sympathetic. We can’t help but root for her, even when she seems to be a drunken destroyer with borderline personality disorder. At one point, she stands in a bathroom, smearing the mirror with lipstick, letting out the rage she feels at her ex-, and it’s a cathartic moment.

Taylor did a superb job of directing “The Help,” using his sympathetic identification with the women on screen to save it from being just another racial message movie, and here, working from a script by the kink-friendly Erin Cressida Wilson (“Secretary”), and utilizing the radiant close-up cinematography of Charlotte Bruus Christensen, he shows a similar impulse. “The Girl on the Train” is sexy, brutal, diary-of-a-mad-housewife trash made with a distinctive creamy classy empathy. When Megan announces that she has landed a gallery job and needs to quit her nanny position that day, leaving Anna and her baby in the lurch, the two of them get into a tense exchange about the hidden perils of being a stay-at-home mom, and this has to be the first contempo noir that features a deep-dish dialogue about that. It’s a scene that resets the stakes.

“The Girl on the Train” is grounded in the tranquil house-beautiful fetishism of the Hudson Valley suburbs, to the point that you sometimes feel you’re watching “Pottery Barn Catalogue: The Movie.” For a while, though, we seem to be trapped in a spin on “Fatal Attraction” in which the aggrieved feminine stalker is the heroine. How badly does Rachel act? She sneaks into her tastefully exquisite former home, where Tom and Anna now live (it’s the paradise she was kicked out of), and coddles their infant in the backyard, pretending it’s the child she couldn’t have. She drinks like a homeless derelict, inviting the stares of passengers on the train. And, in fact, she nearly is homeless: She’s been crashing for two years on a spare bed offered by a friend, and the reason she joins the commuter horde traveling into Manhattan each morning has nothing to do with the PR job she once held. Everything snaps when she oversees the mysterious Megan kissing a stranger, betraying her husband. Just like Rachel was betrayed! Shortly after that, she returns late at night, only now she’s a mess, her hair and clothing caked with blood and mud. On that very night, Megan goes missing. Rachel, of course, has blacked out what happened, but she’s haunted by an image of herself approaching Megan, raising a weapon…

As a novel, “The Girl on the Train” is told by a series of unreliable narrators, and that’s part of its post-“Gone Girl” fragmentary anomie. It’s a structural gambit that carries a whiff of ideology, a sense of women being forced to live divided and tattered lives. In the movie, the unreliability factor plays differently. It comes down to this: We’re shown a bunch of stuff, and we therefore believe it, but the stuff we’re shown may not, in fact, have happened. It’s not all that different from what the book did, yet somehow, in a movie, it comes off as more of a cheat. The audience feels like it’s been played. From what’s presented, it appears highly possible that Rachel is guilty of murder, but that’s partly because the local cops, led by a detective played by the always acerbically sharp and appealing Allison Janney, seem better at random hunches than they are at forensics.

Blunt, who plays half her scenes looking like she’s holding back tears (or maybe screams), is a luminous actress who’s been in need of a role that allows her to get past her slight decorousness, and this is that role. It should, at last, elevate her star. “The Girl on the Train” gets less convincing as it goes along — the climax, which features a man, two women, and a kitchen utensil, is borderline camp — yet the movie has just enough intrigue, and has been made with enough craft, to disguise (for a while) the late-night cable-thriller mechanics it ultimately succumbs to. It delivers a sense of hidden dark lives, which is why it should have no trouble connecting at the box office. Put in demographic terms, a movie like this one fills an essential niche for women moviegoers, and they will likely revel in every sneaky, lurid moment of it. But that same audience should also realize that it ultimately deserves better than decently executed female-gaze victimization pulp.

Film Review: 'The Girl on the Train'

Reviewed at Bryant Park Screening Room, September 24, 2016. MPAA Rating: R. Running time: 112 MIN.

Production

A Universal Pictures release of a DreamWorks, Reliance Entertainment, Mark Platt production. Producers: Marc Platt, Jared LeBoff. Executive producer: Celia D. Costas.

Crew

Director: Tate Taylor. Screenplay: Erin Cressida Wilson. Camera (color, widescreen): Charlotte Bruus Christensen. Editor: Michael McCusker.

With

Emily Blunt, Haley Bennett, Rebecca Ferguson, Justin Theroux, Luke Evans, Edgar Ramirez, Allison Janney, Lisa Kudrow, Laura Prepon.

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 17

Leave a Reply

17 Comments

Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. Alma says:

    Alrighty, how many of these comments were written by men? In addition, the film critic is a man. IMHO, more women will like this movie than men will. Although I found it confusing & a bit difficult to follow in the beginning, I enjoyed it & wouldn’t mind watching it again. I didn’t read the book so I can’t compare the two. I especially appreciated Rachel’s saying in the end, as she rode the train into Manhattan again, this time obviously with a purpose, “I am not that girl.” She had undergone a metamorphosis with which many of us women can identify.

  2. 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.

  3. Arch says:

    Boring as batsh*t and leaves a similar taste in the mouth.

  4. Chaz Harris says:

    Now I understand what’s wrong with critics when I read that the plot is just an excuse but we all want to look up, be the lover or whatever!!! No we all don’t. Many go to see the plot played out, we know they are actors, and just enjoy watching the twists and turns and the plot unfold. We don’t intellectualize to show how smart or well read we are like comparing it to similar (actually not similar) movies or books such as Gone Girl, the Hand That Rocks the Cradle, etc. I read Girl On The Train, and saw the movie, liked them both. Try relaxing and enjoying yourself and not trying to prove what agreat writer or director you could have been….but you weren’t and now…..you are a critic.

  5. Jimmy R says:

    Loved the book. Hated the movie. No tension, no build-up, no suspense. Poorly directed, if at all. Never should’ve moved it from London to NYC. Blunt is the only actor on screen, others just pretty ciphers. This book should’ve been a fun movie. Hope someone remakes it cos this thing’s a dog.

  6. sfdsfs says:

    The Girl on the Train free movie sites http://thegirlonthetrainonline.xyz

  7. Gypo Nolan says:

    Sounds like our Owen needs a cold shower.

  8. JKR says:

    I see Blunt’s publicist is working over time.

  9. Hey says:

    Gone Girl

  10. SMS says:

    What a horrible misleading review. The movie I saw does not resemble this review at all. Is there anything you’ll give a bad review?

    This is a tedious movie that puts one completely illogical plot point on top of another and is filled with forced ridiculous dialogue that lands with a thud and generated multiple audience giggles at its stupidity. Not to be confused with a guilty pleasure, which this is not. Emily Blunt’s strong performance doesn’t save this too serious for it’s own good mess. I know movie criticism is subjective, but there’s a reason the Metacritic score for it is in the 40’s.

    Variety used to have critics you could trust. What happened?

  11. Interesting how this review appears to gauge Girl on the Train from a different perspective. Compared to others beginning with a more negative (shallower?) facade-like impression, my overview of some of this description had deeper association with the book and the author’s goals.

  12. Emily Blunt is a favorite and, great, she gives a towering performance. Haven’t read the book, but enjoyed Tate Taylor’s “GET ON UP” (James Brown) far more than the unrealistic “THE HELP”.

    The prospect of “porn ” (re: sex) is promising with too many films sex-less yet unremittingly violent. But a weak 3rd act liken to a cable film dulls the shine…except for less discriminating female audiences.

    Why not sharper writing? Moot point. This film, as describe, sounds more like “THE HAND THAT ROCKS THE CRADLE”. And protagonist wakes to find that (he) may have committed a murder…done many times before.

    If the movie is borrowing so much, where is there enough originality except for Ms Blunt’s in the role from “FATAL ATTRACTION”?

    A patisch does not originality make (nor doe it make what’s old new again).

  13. stevenkovacs says:

    Loved the book; can’t wait to see the film!

  14. Gil says:

    I love reading Owens reviews and I will be seeing this movie!

  15. George Valentin says:

    I read the book so I am anxious to see the movie.

  16. HJ says:

    So.. this movie is pretty bad… nothing to see here.

More Film News from Variety

Loading