'The Girl on the Train' is morose and predictable

'Train' stars Emily Blunt as Rachel Watson, a woman struggling with alcoholism who keeps tabs on her ex-husband (Justin Theroux) and his new family as well as the glamorous-seeming couple who lives nearby.

Barry Wetcher/Universal Pictures/AP
'The Girl on the Train' stars Emily Blunt (r.) and Justin Theroux (l.).

It was inevitable that a movie would be made of the 2015 mega-bestselling Paula Hawkins mystery novel “The Girl on the Train,” but did the movie have to be so morose? A central dictum of any mystery thriller is this: Make your protagonists, especially your villains, worth caring about. “The Girl on the Train,” directed by Tate Taylor from a script by Erin Cressida Wilson, falls down on the job.

Emily Blunt is cast as Rachel Watson, who spends her days commuting aimlessly to and from New York City from Westchester County, where her ex-husband, Tom (Justin Theroux), and his glossy new wife, Anna (Rebecca Ferguson), live with their new baby. Rachel can’t keep from harassing this couple, whose house lies on the same river route as the house shared by tough-as-nails Scott (Luke Evans) and his even glossier mate, Megan (Haley Bennett). Rachel keeps tabs on all of them, and when a murder is committed, her creepy, boozy voyeurism may hold the key to its solution.

Blunt, who can be quite marvelous in movies, spends most of the film looking haggard and sozzled; the rest of the cast, with the exception of Allison Janney as a police investigator, is dull. The plot twists, such as they are, are garbled and predictable. Since I didn’t much like it either, I probably shouldn’t say that this film is no “Gone Girl.” But I’ll say it anyway. Grade: C (Rated R for violence, sexual content, language and nudity.)

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to 'The Girl on the Train' is morose and predictable
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today