"The Girl on the Train" movie review

I read The Girl on the Train a year and a half ago, shortly after its release.  While I admit I went into the book cautious because it was being compared—somewhat dismissively—to Gone Girl, I was pleased that the book wasn’t entirely derivative.  Sure, the structure is familiar (although while Gone Girl only had two POVs, Paula Hawkin’s book one-upped it with three), but for me the story for The Girl on the Train was more solid, and didn’t unravel after the second half like Gillian Flynn’s book.  Still, The Girl on the Train wasn’t without its blemishes:  Paula Hawkins was clearly a debut author, and multiple characters felt clunky and was inserted too obviously as red herrings. 

Even before Paula Hawkin’s book hit the shelves in January 2015, Hollywood already picked up the movie rights.  I was excited about the casting of Emily Blunt, but went in with low expectations; even though the book didn’t read like a Gillian Flynn copycat, it was clear that Hollywood was going to make Gone Girl-lite.

My verdict?  I’m not very invested in this film, so I’m just going to make a list of things I thought about while watching the film.

• While Emily Blunt is clearly doing an excellent job showcasing her talent, I’m still frustrated at how Hollywood depicts alcoholism.  We’re led to believe that Rachel drinks a bottle of vodka everyday while traveling to and from New York, but outside of looking a little disheveled, she still looks like she would fit in as a model in a Cosmo magazine.

• Speaking of New York, I’m unsure why Hollywood felt it necessary to update the setting from the UK to America.  This isn’t exactly a new concept—hell, at this point I’m surprised when Hollywood doesn’t update the setting—but it still irks me that executives have set in their mind that unless a film is set during a war, or is a fantasy epic featuring wizards or hobbits (although you know if J.K. Rowling wasn’t so adamant about it, Hollywood would have had Hogwarts in America), the setting has to be in America, because Americans won’t accept things that aren’t homogeneous. 

• I understand why the actresses playing Megan and Anna need to look alike (because of a plot point in the second act), but an older couple sitting behind me was clearly confused and kept asking each other which character was which.  This is probably a plot point that could have been changed when adapting to the screen from the page.

• I complained that some characters in the book felt pointless and only served the purpose of being an obvious red herring, but the movie contains even more characters that are poorly written and just disappear about halfway through the movie. 

• The movie, like the book, ultimately turns into a whodunit.  I confess that I guessed wrong while reading the book.  Even if I hadn’t read the book before catching the film, I feel like I would have noticed the glaring red flags that follow this character from his or her introduction. 

I’m so ambivalent towards this film.  Ultimately, I didn’t care for it…but it doesn’t rise to the level required for me to actively dislike it.  I quite enjoyed Emily Blunt’s performance—but other than that, it’s a paint-by-numbers film that wouldn’t be out of place premiering on the Lifetime Network.

Rating:  C-