The Girl On The Train * * *

I might have had a few but this sure don't look like Paddington!.

  Where do American producers get the deluded idea that unless they transpose a story to their own country it isn’t going to be accepted?

  There is virtually no evidence to support the notion, especially in this day and age.  But there again, there is little evidence to support a lot of decisions producers make.

  Perhaps Paula Hawkins should have taken a leaf from JK Rowling's contract.  She told them “You want to film my book? It stays in England.”

  Anyway, to film Hawkins blockbusting novel,The Girl On The Train, they have transposed it from London to the state of New York, which might cause those who have read the book to say “What the heck is going on here?!”.  

  But they won’t be alone.  For I suspect those who haven’t read it will also be remarking “What the heck is going on here?!”  for a different reason.

   Following the time shifting - and the action of three different women - is not too hard when you read the novel, but with this film I cannot imagine it would be so easy, even with slides that announce “Four Months Earlier, or “One Month Earlier”.  I’m sure some viewers might be asking “Four months earlier to what and to whom?”   Another slide announces “Friday”.  God knows why.  That fact doesn’t seem to relate to anything.  They might have had a more lucid and captivating story if they had reorganised Hawkins work into chronological order for the film.

 But aside from all that, it’s not bad and I quite enjoyed it (see, I'm not that hard to please).  (Incidentally I’m one of the millions that have read this ubiquitous novel).

  Without wanting to give away too much, it’s the story of a recently divorced woman, Rachel, slipping into a state of despair and alcoholism.  She catches the train into the city each day. It runs past the back of houses.including one that was her old home until she moved out after the divorce.  Her ex-husband still happily lives there with his new wife Anna, and their new baby.  She can also see the house of their neighbor Megan, a beautiful blonde who stands on the balcony. Rachel envies Megan and her handsome husband but also suspects Megan is having an affair.

  Rachel is unhealthily obsessed with both Anna and Megan.  She begins to loiter out of the front of their houses too.  Her ex husband warns her - threatens her - to keep away.

  Then one of the women goes missing. From seeing something from the train Rachel believes a crime has been committed.  But her constantly inebriated state causes her to have memory blackouts.

  The characters are well cast, especially Emily Blunt as Rachel who rises (or sinks) to the role, with her reddened skin, unkemptness, unsteadiness and occasional slurring, she is a convincingly tragic and lonely alcoholic.

  The book is a bit of a far fetched story (especially the conclusion) so naturally the film is too. Although I wasn't too bothered by the final section in the book, it suddenly seemed exaggerated to absolute implausibility when re-enacted and projected onto the screen.

  It looks beautiful. Perhaps a little too beautiful. Rachel seems to live in a very comfortable shared house with a housemate more tolerant and understanding than the one in the novel.  A little more grunge might have helped.  Aside from changing location they have also changed the season from an English summer to a New York autumn, giving us a background of fall leaves.

  I can’t see this being as enthusiastically adopted as the novel was.  It is not a bad film, but it hasn’t done itself any favours with the changes it has, or has not, made.