an unfortunate catch 22 - the girl on the train.

This afternoon I took myself to my local cinema for a Sunday afternoon by myself to see The Girl on The Train. I'll try and not spoil anything for anyone! You should also know that I did read the book so that should add a bit of perspective for me as a viewer.

First things first, Emily Blunt plays the character of Rachel who is an alcoholic commuter in New York. Her life is caught up with two other women who form the central three characters of the movie. They are played by Hayley Bennet (Megan) and Rebecca Ferguson (Anna). Emily Blunt seems to be copping a lot of flak for this role from professional critics. Some are saying she is flat out terrible - both in her acting as an alcoholic and as a casting choice, deeming her 'too pretty' for the role. On the subject of her acting, I was pretty convinced of her inebriation and thought she really nailed this aspect of the role. I think it was particularly well done given the sheer length of time that Rachel needs to be drunk in the movie and it never felt as if she was overplaying it; you truly did get a sense that she was unsure of herself and what she is capable of. For the second point, while I have read some reviews that state that someone with her level of alcoholism could not look like Emily Blunt, I thought that seeing as she captured the essence of the character so well, this could be forgiven. Also, it is clear that they tried to at least show the physical evidence of her affliction - particularly through a reddened nose and general blotchiness on her face. She also appeared at times to be a bit puffy in the face (perhaps thanks to her pregnancy?). So, overall I had no problem with Emily Blunt as Rachel and thought she did an excellent job.



The second big point of criticism I have seen relates the setting. The book was originally set in London, but for whatever reason this was changed to New York for the movie. I really don't think this changed a whole lot about the story, partly because I agree with the author (Paula Hawkins) that the themes of voyeurism and the location not being the most important thing, but also because commuting can be done just about anywhere, which is where a lot of the story takes place. As someone who lives in a commuter-heavy city (Sydney), I could definitely relate to those long, identical train rides every morning and every evening. I don't think taking it to America particularly added anything to the story, and it's a shame that this was done to 'relate more to domestic audiences', but it did not really detract.

I think the movie suffers from an unfortunate catch 22 - being that it's slow progression really allowed the character development and revealing of secrets to have some sort of payoff for the audience and build some kind of tension. But because of that, the film does feel quite slow. With a running time just under two hours it definitely felt longer, and I heard many sighs around the cinema, especially around the middle to back third of the movie. It was always going to be tough adapting a novel based on an unreliable narrator, but I felt the movie never really picked up the same momentum as the book. Consequently, by the time we arrive to the third act I felt there was no real buildup and the ending did not carry the same weight. As such it all felt a bit flat, unfortunately.

Some definite highlights include the excellent casting of Justin Theroux (he had just the right balance necessary, though little character development) and Allison Janney (she should do smarmy more often). I think the soundtrack was largely forgettable and did nothing to build the tension. Overall this movie is watchable, forgettable and ultimately devoid of any real thrills - it is only worth watching for Emily Blunt's performance.

truly.

sheridan.