The Girl on the Train will often be confused with and often compared to Gone Girl, 2014’s box office success that also registered well with the critics. Both were highly anticipated adaptations of successful novels by two of the more popular present-day writers. Both movies revolve around complex lead female characters who clearly are not completely mentally stable. It’s easy to see how some people might say that The Girl on the Train could be considered a rip-off of Gone Girl, but it’s not. The book had already been written, and, I believe, the movie had already been in the works. So the movies actually are quite different from one another. And, with that said, it’s easy for me to see how The Girl on the Train might achieve the same financial success, but how its 43% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes is slightly less than half that of Gone Girl‘s 88%. In addition, the movie was far less captivating and much less memorable. Nonetheless, The Girl on the Train is a fine movie. In my opinion, it is much better than the book. And while it doesn’t offer the same intriguing storyline as Gone Girl, it’s worth checking out.

I could spend this entire review comparing Gone Girl and Girl on the Train. I promise not to spend the entire review doing that. But, as mentioned, these two movies will often be compared if, for nothing less, because of their similar titles, the closeness of their release, their mentally unstable leads, and the fact that they were both adaptations of successful novels. Truly though, what makes the 2014 movie a much more memorable moviegoing experience? There are lots of reasons, actually. First of all, is the story. While Gone Girl is completely maddening at times, it is totally engrossing. Never, for a second, do you know what is coming from scene to scene. Even if I hadn’t read Paula Hawkins The Girl on the Train, I still think I would have been able to figure out the ending. While the characters were indeed complex, there were only a few directions the story could have gone in. I remember becoming increasingly disinterested in the book while I was reading it. The movie’s pace kept that from happening, but it didn’t make it any less predictable. The three leads of Rachel (Emily Blunt – Sicario, The Adjustment Bureau), Anna (Rebecca Ferguson – Mission: Impossible Rogue Nation, Florence Foster Jenkins), and Megan (Haley Bennett – The Magnificent Seven, The Equalizer) were each fantastic, but none of the three had the ability to hypnotize the audience the same way that Rosamund Pike did as Amy Dunne in Gone Girl. Likewise, the male leads were nowhere close to the caliber that Ben Affleck was as Nick Dunne. And, finally, while the score of The Girl on the Train was good, it was nowhere close to that of Gone Girl. The eerie music in Gone Girl was almost like another character.

Blunt stars as Rachel, an unemployed, barren drunk with an overactive imagination. Though her drinking problem has resulted in her getting fired from her last job, it doesn’t prevent her from taking the train to New York each morning and back home to her New Jersey suburbs in the evening. She loves her time on the train and passes the time by drinking mini bottles of liquor and picturing the lives of those who live in the many houses that she can see from her window. Of particular interest is her dream house that is currently being occupied by Megan and Scott (Luke Evans – Fast & Furious 6, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey). Rachel imagines herself as Megan, living the life that she used to have. In actuality, Rachel had previously lived just down the street from where Megan resides now. Rachel was previously married to Tom (Justin Theroux – Mulholland Drive, American Psycho), but after learning that she could not give him a child, he left her for Anna.

Without giving too much away, someone disappears, and Rachel is at the center of trying to figure out who it is. She knows something, but she can’t exactly remember what happened because she blacked out. Also, her reputation as a drunk does not help establish her credibility as a witness. But Rachel knows she saw something and becomes her own personal detective to try and prove it. This is where the story loses me. There was such a premise for this movie (and the book). But Rachel’s obsession with trying to figure out what happened to the missing person just doesn’t add up for a drunk who really has nothing to do with the case other than her obsessive thoughts.

Speaking of Rachel, Blunt does a fine job of portraying the instability of the character. There is a part of herself that Rachel has never been able to overcome, and that is the fact that Tom left her for another woman. At times, she goes into fits of rage and becomes obsessed with Tom and his new wife, Anna, almost to the point of harassment. But when Rachel was just “drunk” and stumbling around, it felt rather forced. I almost wish Blunt had been drunk to do these softer scenes because it’s very apparent that she’s a sober person playing a drunk. It just doesn’t work. Still, I overcame that because Blunt’s portrayal of Rachel was pretty good everywhere else. The problem wasn’t the acting. It was the story. It was uneven and, honestly, unimportant. It didn’t carry any of the depth or complexity of Gone Girl. And if that is always going to be its comparison, it’s never going to be anything more than average.

The best parts of The Girl on the Train were its performances and its score. In particular, Rachel, Megan, and Anna were all very good, and their complexities and quirks were all highlighted adequately by director Tate Taylor (The Help). In particular, Bennett was very good as the confused, depressed, and often despondent Megan, a woman being groomed by both her husband and her employer to be a mother…something that she has no interest in. Still, as good as Megan was, her character was just one of many. Bennett did not have the opportunity to take Megan to Pike’s depths of despair and desperation with her character in Gone Girl.

The Girl on the Train is a nice little ride, but it won’t stick with you. You’ll forget most of it by the time you walk to your care. But, if you’re a movie buff or like a nice little mysterious blockbuster, you could do worse. This movie is worth a home watch.

Plot 7/10
Character Development 8/10
Character Chemistry 8/10
Acting 8/10 (Blunt, Bennett, and Ferguson each were great)
Screenplay 8/10 (a better than average adaptation of a slightly overrated book)
Directing 8/10
Cinematography 8.5/10
Sound 9.5/10
Hook and Reel 8.5/10 (always entertaining…though fairly predictable)
Universal Relevance 8/10
79.5%