The Girl on the Train (2016)

The accessible page identifies this as a review, but its verdict is behind the paywall. The available text does not reveal what the critic praised or criticized.

The page content is unavailable, so the critic’s verdict cannot be established. No specific praise or complaint can be verified.

Vishnevetsky finds the film a campy, plot-hole-riddled attempt to emulate Gone Girl that falls short. He praises Emily Blunt’s committed performance but says the polished direction and confused handling of perspective undermine the story.

The critic calls it a neat but overly tidy domestic thriller that adds few surprises. Emily Blunt’s casting as Rachel is singled out as its most compelling deviation from the novel.

Kermode finds the film worthwhile despite its shortcomings, largely because Emily Blunt holds it together. He particularly praises her mesmerising, convincing portrayal of a fractured, alcoholic heroine.

Turner calls it a serviceable, faithful adaptation that ultimately amplifies the novel’s problems. He praises Emily Blunt and Haley Bennett’s performances, while faulting the easily guessed mystery and inconsistent plotting.

The critic calls it a solid thriller. The review singles out its transformation of the bestselling novel into a film, though the adaptation has drawn criticism from fans of the book.

The review finds that the film is too slavishly faithful to the novel and never becomes a cinematic equivalent. Emily Blunt’s convincing, sympathetic performance is singled out for praise.

Gleiberman finds the thriller only so-so, though its lurid psychodrama and craft make it engaging before it falters. He particularly praises Emily Blunt’s tender, luminous performance, while criticizing the film’s increasingly unconvincing plot and campy climax.

Ehrlich pans the adaptation as a flavorless, toothless thriller that discards the novel’s sharper ideas. He praises Emily Blunt’s vivid, emotionally charged performance as Rachel.

Gray finds the film a joyless, plodding thriller that mishandles its complex narrative and female characters. He singles out the joke about the men’s affair-related passwords as the film’s lone shred of wit.

Sexton finds the film weak overall, criticizing its casting and reliance on cheap tricks. He singles out Emily Blunt’s unvarnished performance as its greatest strength.

Pile finds the film’s mystery unengaging and its twists ineffective. He praises the honest treatment of alcoholism but faults Emily Blunt’s casting as unconvincing.

McCarthy finds the thriller dreary, one-dimensional, and ultimately unsurprising. He singles out Danny Elfman’s unusual score as the film’s standout, saying it nearly makes the film seem good.

Chang finds the film an incoherent, inept potboiler that fails to turn its mystery into suspense. He praises Emily Blunt’s committed performance, which has affecting moments despite the film’s flaws.

Lane pans the film as dour, muddled, and dramatically unconvincing. He particularly objects to its treatment of alcoholism as a plot device rather than a serious theme.

Edelstein pans the film as a badly told thriller that fails to create suspense. He praises Emily Blunt’s performance but faults the close camera work and clumsy shifts between perspectives.

The critic finds the film a successful, engaging thriller with timely themes. She especially praises Emily Blunt’s performance and the film’s depiction of Rachel’s drunken spells.

Nemiroff finds the film entertaining but weighed down by melodrama and loose ends. She praises Emily Blunt’s committed performance, which keeps viewers invested despite the film’s flaws.

Hammond finds the film effective on its own terms, though it wallows too much in sleaze and its male characters feel one-dimensional. He especially praises Emily Blunt’s luminous performance, along with the editing and eerie score.

Giroux calls the film a decent, sometimes-above-average adaptation that is carried by its performances. He especially praises Emily Blunt for grounding the thriller with a sorrowful, compelling portrayal of Rachel.

The review finds the thriller worth watching despite a disappointing final act. It particularly praises Emily Blunt’s nuanced, empathetic performance as Rachel.

Catchpole finds the film ultimately delivers despite a superficial narrative and a stumble in its second act. She praises Emily Blunt’s brutally authentic performance and singles out Danny Elfman’s score as a highlight.

Crump finds the film frustratingly safe and predictable despite flashes of lurid potential. He praises Emily Blunt’s performance, while criticizing the underwritten supporting women and the delayed turn to camp.

The review is mixed, finding the film’s focus on Rachel compelling but its supporting characters underdeveloped. It singles out Emily Blunt’s performance as giving the film a centre and purpose.

The critic finds the adaptation deeply disappointing, despite its earnest intentions and strong lead performance. Emily Blunt is singled out for a dynamic, emotionally raw portrayal that rises above the film’s contrivances.

The review appears negative, describing the film as joyless. It suggests the film would have benefited from going further off the rails.

The critic finds the adaptation incoherent and suspense-free, with flat direction and a strained narrative. Emily Blunt’s performance is the one element praised for giving viewers a compelling character to hold onto.