It was an easy watch for me, guess I'm glad I didn't read the book beforehand as it was interesting how things would unravel despite there being obvious things that made me guess what happened early. Emily Blunt is terrific.

I loved the book and definitely enjoyed the movie but as is generally the case I liked the book better. It's frustrating because while this is a totally serviceable adaptation I know it could have been a lot better with a better director. Turns out the director of "The Help" is not the best director for this film. To be fair to him and the screenwriter this is an awfully tricky story to pull off in its leap to film what with the changing perspectives and flashbacks. And I do think they handled that well enough for the most part. But even with a running time of 2 hours I feel like it could have been longer. It felt rushed. Which is a familiar feeling I have when watching a movie based off a book I've read. It's impossible to include everything. I get that. But I can't help but wish certain things were included to make it more fleshed out. I found the character of Megan to be a little more one-dimensional than in the book. With the book we were able to get inside Megan's head more so it just felt like something was missing. The movie does stay fairly faithful to the source material but a couple omissions bothered me.

Other than that the biggest changes from the book that most people complain about are the setting changing from London to New York and Rachel having become slightly overweight since her divorce. I have to say neither of these changes bothered me in the film. Rachel is still a total mess and her not being chunky didn't really change that. I thought the location change would bother me most but everything is still pretty much exactly how I pictured it. It really didn't make any difference to the story.

What they really scored with was the casting of Emily Blunt as Rachel. Her award-worthy performance is the big reason to see the film. Any doubts anyone had about her being cast in the role should be put to rest. She elevates the film around her. Also great is Haley Bennett as Megan. She's exactly how I imagined the character. Everyone else is solid but given less to do.

I feel people who haven't read the book will enjoy the film more. I almost wish I could watch it without having read it to see if my opinion were different. But now I can't help wishing it were better. Tate Taylor's version tends to feel a little cheap and TV movie-esque at times. But then there are other times when it looks great and polished. Unfortunately those times when it does feel cheap took me out of it a bit and made me feel like I was watching a sexed up Lifetime movie with better acting. As is that might not be a bad description. Albeit a really enjoyable Lifetime movie.

It has been getting comparisons to "Gone Girl" since the book's release, and those are apt comparisons. But sadly "Gone Girl" this is not. It really could have been up to that quality if David Fincher had directed this as well. Kind of bummed that couldn't have happened.

Despite my complaints it is really good. Just not the great I was hoping it would be.

8/10 (B+)

My friend and I were the only ones laughing when Emily Blunt put the baby on the ground and ran.

This movie is always solidly entertaining, lurid melodrama, even if the book's structural limitations don't really elevate it beyond "solid." Emily Blunt is absolutely terrific as Rachel; she is the only reason the movie holds together, and is totally believable and sympathetic even when she's being a complete hot mess. The rest of the cast doesn't fare as well. Haley Bennett and Justin Theroux are fine, but Luke Evans and Rebecca Ferguson both go way over-the-top and it's almost criminal how much Allison Janney, Lisa Kudrow and Laura Prepon are underused. The film is ably directed by Tate "The Help" Taylor, though I wonder what a director with a notoriously dark aesthetic like David Fincher could have done with this. But a terrific central performance by Blunt keeps things on an even keel and is the main reason you should go. B

I thought the opposite about the performances. The only bad one was Justin Theroux. Everyone else was good to great, but most underused.

I am seeing the film on Thursday. It is too bad that the reception is middling. I have read the book and when I found out that Blunt was cast in the lead, I thought this would FINALLY be the role to get her an Oscar nomination. The part had everything going for it. But a film with this reception isn't going to get an acting nomination...

I read the book and thought it was great. Maybe not at the heights of Gone Girl but appropriately engaging and thrilling, with a powerhouse lead performance from Emily Blunt - who really is fantastic here. I thought the supporting cast all did a great job as well though I'm not terribly sure why they cast Lisa Kudrow as that role could have been played by anyone. B+

Rachel (Emily Blunt), an alcoholic adrift and despondent after her divorce from Tom (Justin Theroux), spends her days riding the train. The train's route lets her see the suburban home Tom now shares with another woman, Anna (Rebecca Ferguson), and their infant daughter. She also sees a gorgeous next-door neighbor, Megan (Haley Bennett). Rachel becomes obsessed with Megan from afar, imagining hers to be an exciting and perfect life. When Megan vanishes, Rachel interjects herself into the case, introducing herself to Megan's husband (Luke Evans) and therapist (Edgar Ramirez), and even begins to suspect she may be involved without remembering it. An inert suspense film, The Girl on the Train obfuscates a thin and often absurd story of attractive, wealthy people hurting one another with the illusion of complexity—this is "four months ago," "two months ago," "last Friday," and so on and so forth, on-screen text insists, but it is hard to care. There is, in general, a clinical quality to the parade of infidelities, lies, and acts of violence on display. Nothing haunts. Nothing stings. Director Tate Taylor, known for The Help and the James Brown biopic Get on Up, is not a gifted enough genre stylist or storyteller to infuse key scenes with the required level of dread or intrigue. And he largely squanders an admirable ensemble cast. Bennett and Ferguson are hamstrung by their roles: the former plays an ingénue-vixen the film exploits and disposes of without rendering three-dimensional, the latter plays a character who is simply too bland and poorly defined considering how important she is to the film's end game. The trio of male leads—Evans, Ramirez, and Theroux—are handsome in the same brooding way and wear fine suits and sweaters, but are otherwise devoid of interest, and an abrupt third-act reveal of one's true, malicious nature is unearned to a nearly amusing degree. The sole saving grace is Blunt, who delivers a tremendous, colorful performance full of tears, rage, inebriated delirium, and other melodramatic flourishes. She is fiery and fun in a picture otherwise extremely short on such qualities. At least she is the main character.

C

Even though he was fired for quote-unquote not keeping his dick in his pants, Tom still live very, very comfortably with his wife, a stay-at-home mom. It seems he can also afford to pay Rachel alimony.

And Megan is your standard-issue runaway turned nanny who also moonlights as the head of a fancy art gallery. Only the psychiatrist is earning a living. Oh, his accent? SHUT UP. HE IS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN.

I definitely got my hopes too high for The Girl on the Train. It's not a bad movie, but it's a very average one. The blackout manipulation was a plot highlight, but there were too few characters to make the mystery challenging. The acting was good, but it was very jarring to see Rachel keep running into Phoebe. *C+*

The potential was there, but this really needed a better director. I just found it boring for the most part, and that's mostly because you don't have a single likeable or interesting character in the whole bunch. Emily Blunt was atleast trying, but I didn't really sympathize for her character, so it all felt meaningless to me. The direction is mediocre, and the movie did seem cheap at times. There also isn't an ounce of atmosphere or intrigue and that's definitely what you need to make a good mystery/thriller. To compare this to Gone Girl is honestly an insult IMO.

*** / ***** (C)

It's a better movie than the reviews suggest and to me more intriguing and interesting than Gone Girl which I thought was wildly overrated. It could've been a great movie, no doubt about that had the script been tighter and more focused. I haven't read the book so I don't know if the narrative follows it blindly, but I do think just a little bit more of linearity would help it.

Just saw it tonight, thought it was great. Definitely can be compared to Gone Girl, although just doesn't meet that level overall, although it might after a re-watch. Blunt was absolutely fabulous but the whole cast was good. Don't know the book, and wasn't sure what to expect aside from a trailer I didn't remember well from a few months ago. I found it thrilling and suspenseful till the end. Even once it became clear Tom was involved in the worst way possible, I was still intrigued what exactly happened and how it would end. Tate Taylor did a very fine job, much like Gone Girl it has a great setting, lovely color palette. Fincher might have been able to add a more pristine layer to it, I enjoyed how it was a bit rougher on the edge as well. Film is at the top of my 2016 list right now.

A-

Gone Girl is a much better book than Girl on the Train. Both films had adaptations that were quite close, but didn't give much reason to translate them to the film medium. It's much more riveting on the page. Emily Blunt is great of course though.

B

The Girl on the Train

An irritably slow, muddlesome, drawn out, medicore attempt at a sexy mystery thriller. The twist lasted until its intended spot, which really was more than I could have hoped for. But the confusing nature of the edit isolated me from the experience. Emily Blunt was both chalk and cheese. In some scenes, she was very good. In others, very bad. The rest of the cast didn't do much acting besides a few intense glances. I wonder if Bennett had a clause in her contract that she will not show herself full frontal, and I'm not saying that as a disgruntled, horny teen. I'm saying that because it was so obviously wanting to be a sexy thriller but it had hired a very sexy girl that wasn't showing much, and the film pays the price. Eh, The Girl on the Train is just a disappointment. Though it was nice to see Lisa Kudrow.

C+

Couldn't agree more.

It is just like the book.

Hehe, a Friends joke.

So it might work well in the book but it certainly wasn't the best choice to go that route in the film.

The book is enjoyable but heavily flawed. I would not have minded more derivations.

I should have just turned it off after the first fifteen minutes. Trash story and trash editing. And the entire story boiled down to a Trashhole being such a stud that these women let him turn them into lunatics.

It wasn't a bad film but just average given the hype around it. Tate Taylor definitely didn't help the movie here and there is a huge disconnect as opposed to reading the book. the twist is horrible in the book so I was expecting them to divert a bit but that wasn't the biggest problem I had with the movie. Blunt is good when drunk

4/10

Yep. And Christ did I hate pretty much everyone in the damn thing. Everyone in this movie is pretty much a void and Blunt is doing the best she can with trash. And the editing...I haven't read the book but I can only assume it's chopped up in the same way, only done so to hide the lame twist though I guess you could excuse the editing as "alcoholic brain". Surprise! It's the only other guy who appears to live on that street.

Pretty much unwatchable outside of Blunt. And while Hailey Bennent is certainly beautiful, based on this and the 45 minutes I've seen of The Magnificent Seven remake she seems expressionless outside of sad and anger. If she ever smiled I'm not sure I'd buy it. She seems like a second-rate Jennifer Lawrence.

D