Regie:
Tate TaylorDrehbuch:
Erin Cressida WilsonKamera:
Charlotte Bruus ChristensenMusik:
Danny ElfmanBesetzung:
Emily Blunt, Rebecca Ferguson, Haley Bennett, Justin Theroux, Luke Evans, Edgar Ramirez, Allison Janney, Lisa Kudrow, Laura Prepon, Marko Caka (mehr)Streaming (5)
Inhalte(1)
Rachel Watson pendelt täglich mit dem Zug nach Manhattan. Jedes Mal fährt sie bei dem Haus ihres Ex-Mannes Tom vorbei, in dem dieser nun mit seiner neuen Frau Anna und dem gemeinsamen Baby wohnt. Auch das Nachbarhaus hat sie immer im Auge, und träumt sich in das glückliche Leben ihres Traumpaares, Megan und Scott. Als sie Megan mit einem anderen Mann sieht, ist sie zutiefst erschüttert und verlässt an der nächsten Station den Zug. Am nächsten Morgen erwacht Rachel blutverschmiert, kann sich aber an nichts mehr erinnern. Und Megan ist plötzlich spurlos verschwunden. (ORF)
(mehr)Kritiken (13)
The main villain is a bottle of tequila... A mediocre thriller which is exceptional only for assembling and showing the nightmares of every woman. Not bad in terms of acting, the so-called nudity is laughable; and I expected better even from Elfman.
()
Eine schöne formale Seite vernebelt erfolgreich das verborgene Geheimnis der Geschichte. Auf die Schauspieler*innen ist auch ein schöner Anblick. Wenn aber das Geheimnis enthüllt wird, wird aus dem Film nur ein gewöhnlicher Thriller ohne jegliche Invention, den man in den Kinos nur wegen der populären Buchvorlage besucht. Und wegen Fincher.
()
Ein Film im Sinne eines Misery-Pornos mit didaktischer Regie sowie einem komisch transparenten Drehbuch, bei welchem man den Mörder bereits nach etwa zwanzig Minuten erahnt. Also bleibt uns nichts anderes übrig, als die Überspielung sämtlicher Beteiligten zu genießen, mitsamt der niedlich gewollten Düsterheit sowie der Exploatationsendung, die in den Händen eines fähigeren Regisseurs hätte provokativ klingen könnten. Es ist so eine Art Německo Gone Girl - Das perfekte Opfer für Haushaltsmuttis und eine Möchtegern-psychologische Sonde einer Beziehungsmiserie. Als Thriller also nicht, jedoch als ungewollt kitschiger Chick Flick Streifen aus einer Bibliothek mit sehr roten Laternen? Na ja.
()
Ich fürchte, dass das ganze Phänomen von Girl on the Train viel interessanter ist als der Thriller selbst. Das Ergebnis ist jedoch ein gutes Frauendrama, das zeigt, dass es durch eine weibliche Brille betrachtet wird. Nun ja, warum nicht. Eigentlich hipp, hipp, hurra. Aber der ganze PR-Hype verkauft leider etwas ganz anderes, fast einen Horrorfilm über eine labile, geheimnisvolle Frau, die vielleicht im Mondschein in einem Zug ein paar Verbrechen begeht oder so. Es wäre eine Analyse wert, ob das Produkt selbst nicht so gut ist oder ob die Werbeagentur einfach nicht glaubt, dass sie ihr Projekt ohne Manipulation an einen Empfänger verkaufen kann, der das Thema/Genre/was auch immer schätzt. Ich finde, verfehlt seinen Zweck, und das ist sehr schade.
()
(UCI Kinowelt, Potsdam, Deutschland, 2.11.2016) Auf den ersten Blick erinnert Girl on the Train an den Vorjahresfilm Gone Girl - Das perfekte Opfer - es geht um zwischenmenschliche Beziehungen, die extrem dysfunktional sind. Emily Blunt hat die Rolle der aufmerksamen und traurigen Alkoholikerin, die sich an ihre Vergangenheit klammert, wirklich gut gespielt. Ihre Darstellung war wirklich überzeugend, ebenso wie die Atmosphäre und die rohe Authentizität einiger Szenen. Allerdings fehlt im Vergleich zu Gone Girl der WOW-Effekt am Ende, der einem einen Schauer über den Rücken jagt, da hätten die Macher noch mehr rausholen können. Außerdem war mir nach etwa der Hälfte des Films klar, wer für das Verbrechen verantwortlich ist. Kurzum, ein Film mit sichtbarem Potenzial, das nicht voll ausgeschöpft wurde.
()
Just as when reading the novel on which The Girl on the Train is based, it is impossible to avoid comparisons with Gone Girl. Both films have noirish, bleak visual stylisation (in Fincher's case, that’s the director’s signature; in Taylor’s, it’s rather an imitation), both depict marriage as a life-threatening game filled with manipulation, lies and hypocrisies (with a cynical sense of detachment and ironic distance from the characters in Gone Girl, but in all seriousness in The Girl on the Train), and both films alternate between multiple narrators (with greater sophistication in Gone Girl). Compared to the slightly misogynistic Gone Girl, The Girl on the Train is more explicitly targeted at adult female viewers, who are encouraged through Rachel’s story to rely on themselves rather than on what they are told or what others want for them. Especially men. ___ As in the book, the final reversal of the roles of victim and offender is a tribute to the emphatic pro-woman cri de coeur, which greatly degrades the impact and sheds doubt on the meaning of the film’s portrayal of an alcoholic woman. Built more on strong acting performances than on narrative games, the film is largely conceived not as a crime thriller, but as a psychological study of an internally insecure woman in search of her lost (self-)confidence. The ending, which unlike the book contains a needless epilogue, suddenly negates this feeling of shame and guilt, intensified by the excellent Emily Blunt throughout the film. As in many of Hitchcock’s thrillers involving the transfer of guilt, the perpetrator was someone other than the film had previously indicated, which in this case, however, serves to resolve only the crime aspect of the narrative, but not the psychological dimension, which comes off as unsatisfying. ___ Thanks to the graphic continuity of the shots and precisely timed editing, Taylor succeeds in fostering the impression of fluidity and interconnectedness of the individual segments of the narrative, or rather of the individual narrators. Flashbacks showing various distant episodes from Megan’s life intensify the suspense with respect to what actually happened. Like Rachel, with her memory affected by sipping vodka, we know only fragments of reality and we have to continually add to and adjust the overall picture on the basis of new information. Like the protagonist, we also mistakenly infer who we are seeing in some of the images based on the available context. The unreliable narrative thus does not serve as the screenwriter’s calculated attempt to deceive the viewer, but is organically connected with the protagonist’s mental state and cognitive abilities. As a result, The Girl on the Train is a compact and focused film, most of whose shortcomings (the mishandled ending, lack of detachment, occasionally melodramatically forced sense of tragedy) stem from the book’s premise or are associated with the audience’s expectations (it’s not a thriller, but a drama). If you see romantic relationships as a cynical comedy that sometimes bring a smile to your face, Gone Girl will probably remain your favourite relationship movie. If you prefer a more tragic approach, The Girl on the Train may suit you better. 80%
()
(weniger)
(mehr)
I like thrillers in a similar vein. That’s also the reason why I gave it one more star than the movie deserves. For most of the runtime, I was actually quite conflicted and I didn’t know what to think about any of the main characters that appeared in the movie. The movie had a strong source material by Paula Hawkins and so I rummaged through the past, the present, and subsequently also fiction and alternative facts. Eventually, the last half an hour, which had balls, started, and it explained a whole plethora of characters, which satisfied me quite a bit. Even though I predicted it a bit differently. Nevertheless, I must admit that there is something about this movie, and even though I spent 90 minutes as if under the haze of alcohol, it still managed to rise to a solid four-star review.
()
A rare case where the adaptation perfectly copies the emotional and subjectively perceptual arc of the original, including its greatest strengths and weaknesses. It builds a perfectly constructed female triangle, pulling closer with every scene, a paranoid atmosphere where no explanation of the mystery is too far-fetched – and unfortunately, a conclusion that disappointed me as the absolute simplest and altogether black-and-white solution. Despite that, thanks to Emily Blunt, I was considering a higher rating for a long time, as she portrayed Rachel with credible emotions even in the subtlest nuances. Haley Bennett prevented me from doing so, sine despite her undeniable charms, she is too cold and cannot fully portray the idealized Megan due to her completely superfluous transparency.
()
The book was better, it went more in depth. The disappearance was better, more shocking. Too bad there was such a rush to get to the plot. If I didn't know the characters from the book, the introduction just wouldn't have been enough. The brief flashbacks are not enough of a source to get information about the characters' pasts. I liked the Rachel’s discovery, even though a simpler path was taken to get there compared to the book. I see this moment as the most emotional of the entire film. The acting was handled very well. I'm just annoyed that the train in the film was headed to New York instead of London. There's a hell of a difference between Britain and the States.
()
Creativity? If only! Gone Girl 2, but for a less sophisticated audience that hasn’t seen much and only knows Fincher from the train. Thanks to the novel it's based on, Girl on The Train has the potential to be a chilling and distinctive thriller, but that potential is nullified by a twist that anyone can guess halfway through the film. The other thing that doesn't work reliably is the editing and all the flashbacks and time jumping. Someone must have been under the influence of drugs, because it is very difficult for the viewer to piece together what, when, where, how, and anyway they explain it semi-literally and literally at the end, even though leaving loose ends would have been so much better. Emily Blunt gives a performance that makes you hope from the halfway point that she will take off her autumn coat, show her muscles and start doing good with a gun in her hand, but it doesn’t happen.
()
Yes, I know that Gone Girl was filmed better, but I liked The Girl on the Train a little more. The thing is, while watching this story, I didn't shake my head in disbelief as often, and I liked the way the film stayed grounded and didn't need to hurl one “surprising" twist after another at us. And although I know she's an excellent actress, I've never seen Emily Blunt act this great before.
()
I don't like fanatics be it religious zealots, morons who think a woman is a consumer product with the same rights as a can of beer, or rabid feminists who are looking forward to the reproductive process finally being possible without involving a single male cell. They all annoy me equally. I think this film was made by the third group, so it was pretty obvious who the repulsive cowardly bastard would be. The plot was pretty lackluster and with so many digressions that it almost went the full circle and bit itself in the ass. The action did pick up momentum in the end, but I was still glad to see the closing credits roll. Emily Blunt’s talent was wasted on this role. On the other hand, she was thoroughly convincing as an alcoholic.
()
You spend a long time watching something that doesn't entertain you. The protagonist Emily Blunt is unpleasant, annoying, and you know all along that it's going to be a bit different. The repetition of scenes becomes irritating, but you know it has a purpose. And yes, the film turns out to have a pretty good point in the end, but what you're watching up to that point just isn't gripping.
()
Werbung