I should focus on The Girl on the Train for a while first. It's the story of Rachel (Emily Blunt), a depressed, alcoholic divorcee. She rides the train to and from New York City every day. From the train, there's a couple she often sees from there house who she fantasizes as having a perfect life. The woman (Haley Bennet) just happens to live two houses down from Rachel's ex-husband (Justin Theroux) and new wife (Rebecca Ferguson). Bennet's character, Megan, is also the ex-husband and new wife's nanny. One day, Megan, goes missing. Earlier that day, Rachel, in the middle of a particularly severe bender, thinks she sees something from her view on the train that can help authorities find Megan. The detective investigating the disappearance (Allison Janney) is suspicious about Rachel's connection to Megan. I'll stop there to avoid accidentally spoiling anything, because the story relies on twists. A lot of them.
Blunt is a strong lead. She's a convincing drunk. I believe her struggle when she attempts to stay sober and understand her when she breaks down. She isn't a likable character, but she is very human. She sells a lot of beats that are tough to pull off on camera. Haley Bennet is playing a "type" more than a "character". She's very good in moments, although in totality, kind of a blank slate. Justin Theroux has a similar issue. He isn't allowed enough leeway to commit to many acting choices. Most of the cast is limited by what the framing of the story will allow. They can't be fully realized until the story is ready for it, which doesn't happen for 90 minutes for some characters, at which point, it's too late to flesh them out.
That's where the Gone Girl comparison is useful. Gone Girl has a fantastic twist. It's layed out patiently and doesn't betray anything in the story before or after. It only changes the way the audience views things (It starts as a low-burn thriller and turns into a dark comedy). In The Girl on the Train, twists are the currency of the storytelling. Every characters is shown at a distance in order to not spoil a surprise later. Scenes are shot to hide faces or phone calls are kept cryptically one-sided. Most beats are dependent on a coincidence - riding a train at the right time, blacking out at the right time, running into a specific person at the right time, etc. It fails my One Big Leap test several times over*. This is the second movie in a row I've seen that spends so much time trying to be clever, that there's not much left to enjoy when already you know what's going to happen.
*In short: I give any movie one big logical leap (ex. one big coincidence). After that, it's just bad writing.
I say that because I did figure out the twists early, and there wasn't enough else to keep me interested. I'm not someone who tries to predict twists. I like being surprised, so I actively avoid playing the guessing game. For some reason, I immediately assumed nearly all of the twists in this. In a well-done movie, I'm still able to enjoy seeing how it's executed (acting, structuring, cinematography). That wasn't the case with The Girl on the Train. I really liked what Emily Blunt was doing, and that might be worth the ticket. Otherwise, it's a pretty "murder by numbers" story (that I have to assume was better handled in the book), not worth the effort put in to misdirect.
Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend
No comments:
Post a Comment