The Girl on the Train

Wow, this film is in love with itself. Another reviewer described it as having flatulent dialogue, and quite frankly, I can't think of a better way to describe the film as a whole.

The first hour is literally just 3 or so people pontificating about love and the ideal dream versus reality and slow evolving the plot (if you can call it a plot). Then there's a brief flash of action, and even more pontificating about the inevitable and painfully obvious conclusion. I'm sure its supposed to be intellectual and insightful but ultimately its just a dressed up airport romance novel. The acting is OK; the direction passable; the premise is as tired and unoriginal as it is interesting; the script is big lumbering mammoth that bores you to the point of wanting to rip off your own arm and beat yourself to death with it; and it certainly does't deserve its sense of superiority.

I cannot see anything redeemable about this pretentious pile of crap. Don't bother wasting the hour and 20 minutes; You can get the same amount of blistering insight in to love and perception in a far, far, shorter time - via one episode of the Vampire Diaries... And at least that will give yo a laugh! This is so bad its not even funny.

Had wanted to watch this film to see Nicki Aycox's performance. For those looking for a Maxim femme fetale version.. binged.it/1xencd2 .. be advised she's not lookin at all like that in this role (although it seems to have called for it). As for the film itself.. can understand what many are saying about the dialogue. Sometimes writer-director's are at a disadvantage, here it appears to have gone that way. Don't have any huge issues with the acting.. but the scrip was made more complicated than need be.. that coupled with the scene jumping all over the place.. it just all becomes overload. Maybe a second viewing (and using subtitles) will bring it more into focus.

I came to this film on Amazon thinking I was going to see the 2016 movie by the same name. I must read the captions more closely. If I had I would have avoided what turned out to be a juvenile essay on the meaning of love and life.

When i was 17 or so. after being in love four or five times, and reading too much Sartre in between, I wrote several short stories about love and life filled with overwrought observations that didn't wear well with time. My Dad, a writer, tried to be kind. Save them because they will tell you who you were then and believe me you'll forget, he said. And while they're not very good they do have the virtue of being sincere.

Precisely what this film lacks; instead its gratuitous world-weariness is simply cynical. My juvenile efforts may have been sincere but they didn't ring true because I lacked experience.The author of this film seems to suffer the same deficiency - he fantasizes instead of seeing , thinking, and observing. Which is strange; you'd think someone who is experienced enough to make a technically proficient two hour movie would have moved beyond juvenile fantasies about these potent subjects. Alas, not so in the 2013 version of The Girl on A Train. Do yourself a favor and wait for the 2016 movie by the same name which by all accounts is pretty good.

This story does pull you in initially, but by the end turns into mush, with its pseudo-philosophical outlook, which another reviewer astutely summarized, as " a combination of arty arrogance and teenage angst". The story of a Nazi concentration camp victim, which the protagonist was making a documentary about, was the most interesting part of the film. The film presents love, as the biological relationship between members of the opposite sex. I believed this in my adolescence ( "teenage angst" ), but have mostly managed to get beyond this, thank God. The monologue near the end is delivered in such a solemn, pontificating manner, it initially sounds profound, until you think about it for a couple of minutes. You then realize, it is totally concerned with an adolescent's viewpoint of love/lust. The movie would have been much better, if this speech, was omitted. I did find it represented women as conniving and irresponsible, through the female lead. It gave the pathetic, popular excuse, that if the woman is sexually attractive enough, this is OK.

The acting was quite good, as well as, the cinematography.

Unfortunately there are 4 movies with this same title, all produced between 2009 - 2016, so before you watch this movie, make sure you are seeing the right one. At the time that I am writing this review there are only 10 prior reviews, with an average of just 4.5 stars out of 10. I almost didn't watch this movie because of its low overall score but I'm very glad that I did because it turns out that this suspense/mystery/love film is at least 9 stars. Compared to the usual mystery movie it is a big breath of fresh air. The dialog is very thoughtful, in most places philosophical, with the characters discussing the relationship of love to stories and of story-telling to reality (and much more). After so many mystery movies with standard dialogs and plots, this film is very refreshing.

The movie involves several parallel stories, with each addressing the nature of the role of deceit and love in life. For example, an elderly Jewish man tells of his experiences in Nazi Germany while interviewed by the hero (a film-maker named Danny Hart, played very aptly by Henry Ian Cusick). In parallel, Danny himself is being interviewed by someone else (I won't say who) and tells his own story of meeting a young woman on a train. Each character, in turn, tells their own stories about yet other characters.

There are so many twists and turns in the plot that I was reminded of The Magus. At the end of the movie I spent quite some time thinking about the statements made by the characters and about the film's conclusion, which in general is the sign of a very good movie -- like reading a short story by Somerset Maugham.

The movie's plot structure might be too difficult for the average viewer but will be thoroughly enjoyed by those who like a complex, thoughtful, intriguing movies regarding good, evil, love, betrayal, truth, art, reality -- for them this movie will deliver an unique experience (like Wood Allen's 1989 movie Crimes and Misdemeanors).

I normally don't review movies but I felt that this movie deserved a much higher rating. I will not give it a 10 just to raise it's rating. I believe it deserves a score of 9. The reason that it is not a 10 (at least for me) is something I cannot discuss here because I don't want to include any spoilers.

I think that a movie of this caliber (although shot in just 17 days) deserves a much wider audience. I have no connection of any sort to anyone involved in the making of this movie.