When the teaser for Game of Thrones’ first season aired, I devoured the entire six book series within two months. When I heard the smoking Tom Hardy was going to star in Child 44, I bought the thriller on Kindle to read that very night. Paula Hawkins though, will need to forgive me. I did not rush to Barnes & Noble for her New York’s best-selling novel after seeing the preview for Girl on the Train: I rushed to the closest cinema.
The trailer tantalizes viewers with an eerie, yet action-packed plot without giving too many details away. Perhaps this was why I was too impatient to discover the ending by slowly turning book pages.
In director Tate Taylor’s adaptation, Emily Blunt stars as Rachel Watson, a frequent train commuter who becomes obsessed with a family along her route. After witnessing something unnoticed by other passengers, Rachel involves herself (much to viewers’ frustration) in solving the mystery. With her alcoholic habits and her ex-husband living next door to the victim, Rachel immediately incriminates herself as the number one suspect for authorities and movie-goers alike. But as the movie progresses, viewers see layers of complexity in each character that seems to contradict prevous impressions.
Initially, I questioned Blunt’s ability to convincingly portray an unreliable drunk. But when Blunt’s character discovers herself covered in blood after a vodka-induced blackout, the resulting fear and self-doubt appears completely authentic. In addition to Blunt’s stellar performance, the cinematography skilfully blurs and cuts scenes short to keep audiences guessing the true murderer with Rachel until the very end.
As the concluding credits begin to roll, don’t be surprised if boisterous fans of the book voice their opinions.
“The book was soooooo much better. You need to read it. Like really.”
“Ugh, I cannot believe they changed it.”
The one change that seems to have book loyalists in an uproar is the setting. Instead of taking place in London, the film features the New York skyline. Is that really worth being that upset over? The big city vibe is still accurately portrayed and the specifics seem so trivial that it’s unlikely this “cheapens” the plot. There could a reason why the director kept the character’s British accent, but relocated to the big
apple. Even if this strategic move was to simply cut unnecessary filming costs, it seems very minor.
So go ahead writers and bookworms, watch the movie even if you haven’t touched the book. We won’t judge if you’re too impatient too.
