Thursday, October 20, 2016 11:13:12 PM | (Age Not Specified)
Stay home and watch one of those stupid LifeTime movies. Girl on a Train is plodding bore in with a plot full of holes and an unbelievable story. This movie was no doubt created by the nutty man-hater hysterical third wave feminist hate groups.
Tuesday, October 18, 2016 8:32:59 PM | (Age Not Specified)
I did not read the book so didn't know the entire storyline and thought that this was a good movie. Very entertaining and full of suspense. Emily Blunt was fantastic.
Tuesday, October 18, 2016 6:11:15 PM | (Age Not Specified)
Very slow in the beginning and although the pace picked up a bit, my interest did not. It wasn't the worst movie I've seen, but wasn't worth a theater visit.
Tuesday, October 18, 2016 3:20:15 PM | (Age Not Specified)
Hollywood has ruined an otherwise thrilling story written by the British author, Paula Hawkins in her novel "The Girl on the Train". The departure by Hollywood from the quality and authenticity of the book is a travesty for the sake of commercialism. These departures include the overwhelming use of the "f..." word and the "mother f..." words. This totally destroyed the movie for me and left me zoned out. As well, the setting of the film is a complete departure from the novel. Rather than the train moving through a working class suburb of London as in the novel, Hollywood has tried to glamorize the setting by having the train move through a New York suburb with multi-million dollar waterfront homes. As well, the chararacters in the movie live in these multi-million dollar homes and there is little evidence to support this lifestyle given that they are young and seem to have ordinary jobs.
The casting of Emily Blunt is also another example of Hollywood trying to inject "glamour" in their movie. While she may be a good actress, she in no way resembles the overweight, somewhat unattractive, alcoholic main character described in the novel. Her red-tinted contact lenses didn't come close to establishing her as the same character as in the novel.
The scenes are disjointed and the way the plot unfolds makes it evident about three-quarters of the way through the movie, what the outcome will be.
So, for those of you who have read the novel, you may want to remember the novel as you read it rather than tarnishing your memories by watching the Hollywood version.
Sunday, October 16, 2016 11:38:37 PM | (Age Not Specified)
Good movie, the book is so much more informative, I think if you watched the movie first you will be missing a lot about the characters
slow moving in the beginning,but great acting.
Saturday, October 15, 2016 11:46:09 PM | (Age Not Specified)
I didn't read the book but heard such good things that I thought I'd see the movie instead. What a mistake - I think. This movie is NOT a thriller, at least not what I consider a thriller. Not scary in any way; in fact, a little dull for the first 3/4's. I don't like movies that leap around in time - "6 years ago" "2 months ago" "4 years ago" etc. and that's exactly what this one did. I was confused and frustrated until things finally came together in the final 30 minutes. I just didn't like it. My friend said it followed the book pretty closely so I won't bother reading it now. Very disappointed with this movie.
Saturday, October 15, 2016 10:40:21 PM | (Age Not Specified)
I did like this movie. Had a surprise ending. All really good acting. My husband fell asleep but not surprising as there was not any super heros flying about or anyone being beamed up lol. He honestly said the middle to the end was very interesting. There seems to be alot of narrative movies lately.
