Une femme divorcée se retrouve mêlée à une enquête sur des personnes disparues qui promet de chambouler sa vie.Une femme divorcée se retrouve mêlée à une enquête sur des personnes disparues qui promet de chambouler sa vie.Une femme divorcée se retrouve mêlée à une enquête sur des personnes disparues qui promet de chambouler sa vie.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Nomination aux 1 BAFTA Award
- 4 victoires et 13 nominations au total
Edgar Ramírez
- Dr. Kamal Abdic
- (as Édgar Ramírez)
Cleta Elaine Ellington
- Oyster Bar Woman
- (as Cleta E. Ellington)
Avis à la une
This is an excellent mystery/thriller that had me 'grasping at straws' for a solid hour or so, trying to figure out who was 'good' and who was 'bad.' And...it's punctuated with a "killer ending!" (Yes, pun intended ~)
Plot in a nutshell: An alcoholic loner subject to blackouts (Emily Blunt) immerses herself in a missing-persons case in which she becomes a prime suspect.
(First let me state I have not read the novel on which this film is based. So my review and impressions are formed solely from watching the movie, where they should be. It seems most of the negative reviews here are from people who read the novel, then apparently watched this film with a notepad in hand, already knowing the story and the outcome but eagerly marking down every area that doesn't match the book, and then coming here to write negative reviews to vent about it. No offense to them (or you, if you are one of them), but the point here is to review the FILM - not to compare and contrast the film to the novel (or to anything else, for that matter). If you want to write a review of the book, go to Goodreads.com and write it there! This site is for the film, and it's what I want to know about. All of these reviews on here telling me about the book, and then giving a poor rating because the film isn't exactly like the book, are irrelevant and out of place. Let's talk about the FILM....)
And yes, it's a very good one. Emily Blunt does such a masterful job of playing an alcoholic social outcast, I agree with some others on here wondering why she wasn't even nominated for an Academy Award. It's that good. She plays one of three women around whom the story largely revolves (Rebecca Ferguson and Haley Bennett are the others). These three are all loosely connected in various ways that are not obvious at first but, through flashbacks and story shifts, we are gradually shown how they tie together. One of the three goes missing and the plot then shifts to solving that mystery.
Saying much more than this will ruin the story so I'll draw the line there. But I will say I found this to be highly entertaining and was constantly shifting my opinion as to who was the guilty one. At one point I guessed right (as it turned out) but I changed my opinion based on what was happening, only to find out I had been right 20 minutes ago! But that's the beauty of this film - just when you think you've got it figured out, you are given a new shred of information that makes you question everything you'd accepted before. That's good story-telling and worthy of acclaim. It's not a stretch to say "The Girl on the Train" comes from the same mold as the Agatha Christie and Alfred Hitchcock classics. If you like those, you'll probably like this too.
8/10. Effective and intriguing mystery that deserves a much higher rating than it's current 6.5 here. Would I watch again (Y/N)?: Yes.
Plot in a nutshell: An alcoholic loner subject to blackouts (Emily Blunt) immerses herself in a missing-persons case in which she becomes a prime suspect.
(First let me state I have not read the novel on which this film is based. So my review and impressions are formed solely from watching the movie, where they should be. It seems most of the negative reviews here are from people who read the novel, then apparently watched this film with a notepad in hand, already knowing the story and the outcome but eagerly marking down every area that doesn't match the book, and then coming here to write negative reviews to vent about it. No offense to them (or you, if you are one of them), but the point here is to review the FILM - not to compare and contrast the film to the novel (or to anything else, for that matter). If you want to write a review of the book, go to Goodreads.com and write it there! This site is for the film, and it's what I want to know about. All of these reviews on here telling me about the book, and then giving a poor rating because the film isn't exactly like the book, are irrelevant and out of place. Let's talk about the FILM....)
And yes, it's a very good one. Emily Blunt does such a masterful job of playing an alcoholic social outcast, I agree with some others on here wondering why she wasn't even nominated for an Academy Award. It's that good. She plays one of three women around whom the story largely revolves (Rebecca Ferguson and Haley Bennett are the others). These three are all loosely connected in various ways that are not obvious at first but, through flashbacks and story shifts, we are gradually shown how they tie together. One of the three goes missing and the plot then shifts to solving that mystery.
Saying much more than this will ruin the story so I'll draw the line there. But I will say I found this to be highly entertaining and was constantly shifting my opinion as to who was the guilty one. At one point I guessed right (as it turned out) but I changed my opinion based on what was happening, only to find out I had been right 20 minutes ago! But that's the beauty of this film - just when you think you've got it figured out, you are given a new shred of information that makes you question everything you'd accepted before. That's good story-telling and worthy of acclaim. It's not a stretch to say "The Girl on the Train" comes from the same mold as the Agatha Christie and Alfred Hitchcock classics. If you like those, you'll probably like this too.
8/10. Effective and intriguing mystery that deserves a much higher rating than it's current 6.5 here. Would I watch again (Y/N)?: Yes.
An interesting thriller. I never suspected who it was until the very end
To say the least, "The Girl On The Train" is a very dark movie. Unsettling. Confusing. Even baffling. There's an uneasy feel to this from the start. Something's off. Something's not right. Is this even reality, or is it a fantasy taking place inside the mind of a very disturbed woman? The disturbed woman in this case is Rachel (Emily Blunt.) She's an alcoholic and rides the same train every day, past the house where she used to live with her ex-husband. She sees their neighbours, and wonders about them and about their relationship. The female neighbour is the nanny to her ex-husband, his new wife and their baby. The movie mixes the story of all three (Rachel, Anna - the new wife, and Megan - the nanny) together. What drives it forward is that Megan has gone missing, and the question is what happened to her and who was responsible.
For a while I found this an unpleasant movie to watch. To be honest, I had to turn it off at about the half hour mark. It wasn't hitting home with me. But there was something about it that drew me back; I needed to see how this was going to turn out. In the end I was glad that I did. It overcomes the bleakness of the first half hour and although it still seems to walk the line uneasily between fantasy and reality, the mystery involved gets more and more engrossing, and the plot twist (you knew something had to be coming) happens with about a half hour to go - and it was, to me at least, completely unexpected. Not all is as it seems to be. The inter-twining of the stories of Rachel, Anna and Megan leads up to a sobering finish.
In the end I was surprised to discover that I was actually quite awakened from the slumber-inducing first half hour or so and really wanted to see how this was going to end. Emily Blunt's portrayal of Rachel was strong. The supporting cast was all right - I didn't think there were any outstanding performances aside from Blunt's, but it was Blunt's movie, and she pulled it off. It has to overcome that slow and bewildering first half hour, and it won't appeal to those who want a straightforward plot or who are put off by a movie with overtly dark tones. But by the time this was over I could honestly say that I was glad I watched it. (6/10)
For a while I found this an unpleasant movie to watch. To be honest, I had to turn it off at about the half hour mark. It wasn't hitting home with me. But there was something about it that drew me back; I needed to see how this was going to turn out. In the end I was glad that I did. It overcomes the bleakness of the first half hour and although it still seems to walk the line uneasily between fantasy and reality, the mystery involved gets more and more engrossing, and the plot twist (you knew something had to be coming) happens with about a half hour to go - and it was, to me at least, completely unexpected. Not all is as it seems to be. The inter-twining of the stories of Rachel, Anna and Megan leads up to a sobering finish.
In the end I was surprised to discover that I was actually quite awakened from the slumber-inducing first half hour or so and really wanted to see how this was going to end. Emily Blunt's portrayal of Rachel was strong. The supporting cast was all right - I didn't think there were any outstanding performances aside from Blunt's, but it was Blunt's movie, and she pulled it off. It has to overcome that slow and bewildering first half hour, and it won't appeal to those who want a straightforward plot or who are put off by a movie with overtly dark tones. But by the time this was over I could honestly say that I was glad I watched it. (6/10)
I almost turned this movie off at 30 minutes. That's my cutoff time for bad ones. For some reason, I left it playing and kinda watched it. It was a very slow burn. The first 30 minutes were a snoozer. But then just after my cutoff time, the plot started moving forward. If you are going to watch this, plan on being bored for 30 minutes but the rest of the movie more than makes up for it. And you really have to watch it. There are so many entanglements that you won't know who is doing what to whom and why without really paying attention.
It is worth it. Don't want to give anything away but it has a real ending (unlike lots of modern movies) and it will satisfy you with the way it all comes out. You CANNOT predict the ending. You cannot see it from 30 minutes away. Just wait for it. It will justify your time spent (1 hour, 51 minutes).
It is worth it. Don't want to give anything away but it has a real ending (unlike lots of modern movies) and it will satisfy you with the way it all comes out. You CANNOT predict the ending. You cannot see it from 30 minutes away. Just wait for it. It will justify your time spent (1 hour, 51 minutes).
I read some of the reviews here, and came with very low expectations to this movie, and WOW, what a pleasant surprise! Blunt gives here the show of her life, way above the level of acting in "edge of tomorrow". The story itself takes time to build but it all adds to the atmosphere, and finally you get a fair amounts of twists and turns. Bennett and Ferguson also acting very well, which all adds (to my opinion) to a great film. And to all the men that say it's a "men hating" film, I say that you really have a low self-confidence to come up with such a statement... I would risk to say it's one of my 2016 best films, and I will be surprised if Blunt will not be an Oscar nominee for this film.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesEmily Blunt would wear bloodshot contact lenses for the scenes in which she's heavily inebriated. She also wore prosthetics on her cheeks to make them look slightly plumper.
- GaffesWhen Rachel and the woman she is chatting to in the bar say "F**k you, Anna Boyd" into Rachel's smartphone camera they say it at the same time, but when Rachel plays it back later their voices are not in harmony.
- ConnexionsFeatured in Roeper's Reviews: Richard Roeper's Top 16 Films for 2016 (2016)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Sites officiels
- Langues
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- La chica del tren
- Lieux de tournage
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 45 000 000 $US (estimé)
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 75 395 035 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 24 536 265 $US
- 9 oct. 2016
- Montant brut mondial
- 173 185 859 $US
- Durée1 heure 52 minutes
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant