The Girl on the Train : It was GOOD

It was GOOD

Don't listen to critics people, this was the perfect blend of an effective, cinematic thriller and a surprisingly faithful adaptation of a bestseller. Clearly not a masterpiece but it did remind me of those classy B-thrillers from the 90s I miss so much. It was tense, twisty, effectively directed, faithfully adapted and superbly acted. Emily Blunt gave a tour de force performance and Haley Bennett, Justin Theroux, Rebecca Ferguson, Luke Evans, Allison Janney all delivered excellent performances, as well. 10/7 + Blunt deserves an Oscar nomination.

Re: It was GOOD

"Don't listen to the critics"

Everyone is a critic, including you, so nobody should listen to you.

Re: It was GOOD

Oh. My. God. That was TOO deep.

Re: It was GOOD

I completely agree with you. What the critics have done to everyone involved in this film was unforgivable.

Re: It was GOOD

Good? Did you watch the same movie as me and most of the rest of people going to see it? It's trash.

In Monte We Trust ... #TeamMonte

Re: It was GOOD

And you're entitled to feel that way. Others can and do feel differently.

Hope changes everything.

Re: It was GOOD

I think calling it trash is a disservice because there are films that are genuinely trashy.

Girl on the Train was just a bland. Upstate New York looked like nowhere. They could've shot it in Vancouver for all the difference it would have made. The shots were mediocre and for a film of its subject matter it had zero edge. They were clearly aiming for Gone Girl 2.0 and it felt a little more angsty like Twilight for grownups.

The great cast was criminally underused. They telegraphed the ending from miles away and there was nothing to take away from it.

Re: It was GOOD

What? I actually liked the scenery in this film, it was quite unique and atmospheric, they chose great filming location(s). I certainly dont see any moody and dreary yet picturesque looking places like that where I'm from. Of all the things to rip this movie on, the cinematography should not be one of them. The whole film has a very distinct and unique visual feel, and I enjoyed that if nothing else.

Re: It was GOOD

You've indeed read the novel?


Clearly not a masterpiece but it did remind me of those classy B-thrillers from the 90s I miss so much.


B-level? I've heard the words exploitation and trashy thrown around when describing the movie and not the good kind either. I'm familiar with those 90s thrillers you're talking about but I have the feeling that this one is not on that level.

My friends just saw this and there response was the total opposite and warned me not to see this and they know what I like and have not steered me wrong yet.

Re: It was GOOD

Then go get one of your friends and have them write a review. Otherwise, you (one who hasn't seen it) coming here to tell us what they thought, doesn't mean much.

Hope changes everything.

Re: It was GOOD

I'm not talking to you.
I'm trying to get a little more info from the OP, who did see it in order to get some other perspectives on it.
I'm guessing you haven't seen it either so what you're posting doesn't mean much as well.

Re: It was GOOD

You're right, I haven't seen it. The movie is released tomorrow - the 7th. I didn't say that you didn't have the right to post but that stating your friends' disapproval of the film doesn't mean much. That's all.


Hope changes everything.

Re: It was GOOD

Movies have early Thursday showings these days.

Re: It was GOOD

I'm aware of the but the film's official release date is the 7th - today.

Hope changes everything.

Re: It was GOOD

Sorry, I forgot to check back on this thread. Yes, I read the novel, I quite liked it, kind of got that hitchockian vibe it was clearly aiming for and though the big reveal was a bit lazy in my opinion, I would still recommend the book.

The film, I liked too, I actually liked the reveal MUCH more here because by creating the new character (Lisa Kudrow), that scene was much more effective than the therapy sessions in the book, a part they didn't really embrace in the film and it was better for it.

By 90s B-thrillers I don't mean the GREAT ones, I mean the classy, good-not-great ones, with good actors, twisty convoluted (slightly exploitative), sexually charged plots and memorable characters like Basic Instinct, A Perfect Murder, Kiss the Girls. None of those films were great but even with all their flaws, they were immensely entertaining and watchable and yes, all those films could have been easily labeled "trashy" and exploitative back in their day and it wouldn't have made them any less enjoyable (or successful) in the end, To me The Girl on the Train is something along those lines : a flawed but valiant and immensely watchable effort. With GREAT performances.

P.S. The group I took haven't read the book and what they appreciated the most that for a rather long time they all thought that basically every character could be behind the central crime. There was one mistake I would have fixed in post-prod though, a revealing line the detective told the husband and he told Rachel like midway through the film (=too early), but other than that, it was OK. As I said earlier : not a masterpiece - the book wasn't that either, but still the very least, GOOD.

Re: It was GOOD

Its very much in the vein of those 90s thrillers such as Final Anaiysis, Primal Fear and The Hand that Rocks the Cradle. Its equally as good as those films of you enjoyed them you should like this.. Excellent performances all round especially Blunt

Re: It was GOOD

I'm with you OP. I find a lot of the reviews to have weird, contradicting desires (wanting to stay true to the book yet disliking the disconnected memories). I think most critics (as in do it for a job) are writing some very interesting reviews for this one.

Re: It was GOOD

I'm not going to say it was terrible. The performances just fine. I just found it disjointed and predictable. I saw the ending coming from a mile away and it didn't feel suspenseful to me. It was okay, but I was disappointed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCXYp0DN0nI

Re: It was GOOD

This movie is underrated. I really enjoyed the story and the acting.

Re: It was GOOD

I thought so to. This is a strange beast, me and my partner liked it a lot. But it obvious that a lot of people made up their mind even before seeing it because of some bad reviews. I seldom disagre this much with critics.

Re: It was GOOD

Or maybe, or shall we say most likely, *gasp* just legitimately didn't like or hated the film. If people liked 'The Girl on the Train', I have no problem with that whatsoever, but can people really cut it with the critic bashing and just accept that people have different opinions. And seriously, don't give me that crap about it being obvious that people made up their mind even before seeing it. For many it was the complete opposite, and that they wanted it to be good and had high expectations, only for them to be dashed. With me, I really liked the book but when I saw the film, without seeing any reviews beforehand, outside of the acting (Emily Blunt is sensational) and score I was hugely disappointed and found it a mess, especially the script, story and ending.

Before anybody asks, I am judging the film on its own merits as an overall film, not as an adaptation, though I will say in passing that it is a very poor adaptation at best. And I was one of those people who wanted it to be good. I do find it very telling when those who disliked the film give very good reasons for doing so and mostly do it respectfully, while it's those who liked it who act in an immature and condescending way for no reason and make it out in reviews and the message board that anybody who gives even as much as a speck of a criticism is committing a crime. This said there are thousands of films far worse than 'The Girl on the Train'.











"Life after death is as improbable as sex after marriage"- Madeline Kahn(CLUE, 1985)

Re: It was GOOD

Ok good to know.. hmm wonder if you ever heard the expression "the pot calling the kettle black".

Re: It was GOOD

I realise now on re-wording my post that I worded it rather too strongly, and some of what I said did border on the preachy, defensive and better not said (like the "I find it very telling" bit, but in this case I did feel it was true). I do sincerely apologise for that and mean it from the bottom of my heart, and while I responded to you it wasn't directed solely at you. It's just that this whole critic bashing and not being accepting of opinions in a huge problem on IMDb that has gotten well out of hand and a pet peeve of mine. All I was trying to point out was that saying that people rating the film low due to having an agenda for doing so was uncalled for and ignorant and suggested somebody with a superiority complex, at least to me.



Yes I have heard of the term "the pot calling the kettle black". I may have Aspergers Syndrome (meaning that I can get upset disproportionately and word something strongly, the very reason why I came over that way when it is something I feel strongly about) and be disabled but I am not stupid. If I was stupid I wouldn't have a degree in music (vocal and operatic studies) or got where I am today against adversity with sheer determination. Nor would I know about classical music as much as I do, or speak about film the way I do. If I was stupid, I would not have gotten past GCSEs, be a couch potato, be reliant on my parents for money, struggling to find a job or perhaps be a benefits cheat, neither of which for your information I am. If "pot calling the kettle black" was the way I came over, I am really sorry and in no way was it intended.

I am a very passionate, maybe too passionate, person but it is never my intent to come over a hypocrite that you're accusing me of being. And I do honestly feel very upset and insulted and that it was unfair for that to be said, regardless of how I came over which was said with good intentions and no malice intended. Honestly you do come over as somebody who is not bothering to listen to what I was trying to say and instead resorted to insults, but again I may be wrong. Hence why I had to explain why I came over that way, which is my autism, something that I struggle with everyday, get taken advantage of and get a lot of prejudice constantly. This said, I don't expect you to understand what it's like and give a damn.

Also have you also noticed that absolutely nowhere in my post did I ever attack your opinion or say that you were wrong, in fact that you liked the film doesn't bother me. In no way did I insult you personally either. It was your unfounded conspiracy theory that just ticked me off and will undoubtedly do so others, so I did have to justify that people legitimately didn't like the film and wanted to and had good reasons for doing so, no hidden agenda involved. There are definitely far more ignorant people than you and you are a long way from being the only one. Just as much as I am not the only one who feels strongly about critics being unfairly bashed and that people need to be more accepting of opinions other than theirs, and many have done much more rudely than I did, compared to those people I wasn't rude at all though probably got more defensive than necessary.

Again, I am very sorry and mean it very sincerely.





















"Life after death is as improbable as sex after marriage"- Madeline Kahn(CLUE, 1985)

Re: It was GOOD

I just watched it, I didn't know anything about the book, and *beep* I did like it very much. Really nice movie in my opinion, I didn't know it was getting trashed by the critics. I do agree with you in what you said about the critics. I didn't like Emily Blunt up to this movie, but she was GOOD!

Re: It was GOOD

I agree completely. Kept me entertained for a couple of hours. Definitely like the 90s thrillers.

Re: It was GOOD

Well you are very much in the minority and possibly just like bad movies, move on?

Re: It was GOOD

hope it was much beter...dissapointing....4/10

Re: It was GOOD

OP, I loved this and since you mentioned that it reminded you of "those classy B-thrillers from the 90s", I will appreciate it if you list some recommendations.

Thank you

English is not my native language.
Want to know who did 911? visit http://www.911missinglinks.com/

Re: It was GOOD

Hi,

the OP already mentioned some of them, like Basic Instinct, A Perfect Murder, Kiss the Girls. One of my favourite thriller from the 90s is Malice with Alec Baldwin and Nicole Kidman.

Re: It was GOOD

Oh, thank you.

Too bad :( i've seen them all

English is not my native language.
Want to know who did 911? visit http://www.911missinglinks.com/

Re: It was GOOD

A few more : High Crimes, Double Jeopardy, or a newer one that resembles the 90s B-thrillers a bit, Before I Go To Sleep. These are some of my guilty pleasures as in flawed af movies that nonetheless remain thoroughly entertaining and immensely watchable.

Re: It was GOOD

Thanks, i'll check "Before I Go to Sleep" havn't seen that one.

English is not my native language.
Want to know who did 911? visit http://www.911missinglinks.com/

Re: It was GOOD

Agreed - thrilling drama, I'd call it though. Complex role, but I felt all of it with Emily Blunt! Oscar-worthy, no doubt. I'm re-watching, which I rarely do. Rated 9/10. Again, very rare for me.

Someone's at the door
Top