The Girl on the Train The Girl on the Train question


452 views
How well does film represent books?
DebbieK DebbieK May 28, 2017 06:39AM
I really enjoyed The Girl on the Train by Paula Hawkins. However the film did not represent the story well; converting British to American failed and the intense suspense in the book was not portrayed on screen.



PLEASE read the book before even looking for the movie. It was not the same. The character development is so much more clear in the book where in the movie I hated everyone that I was supposed to love and vice versa. Movies need to get it together.

79968467
Ted Smith I thought the movie was terrible. They left so many important things out and kept stupid things in. The book was amazing though!
Mar 28, 2018 05:58AM

The book was way better than the movie. The book did drag in parts for me, however I could only watch 30 minutes of the movie and I was extremely bored and had to turn it off.


Sushant (last edited Jul 16, 2018 12:49AM ) Oct 09, 2017 05:02AM   1 vote
movie was not even close to the book..the best of the things was not even described.. emily blunt did a good job..seems like direction ruined it.. or intels of missing part which is important for characters to describes are not shown in movie..


Wasn't a big fan of the book, so I didn't find the movie as disappointing as others did. The time limit of a 2 hour movie forces plot/character decisions to change. I thought Emily Blunt did a good job playing the narrator. I didn't think the book was that suspenseful, I new who the murderer was pretty early on. I say skip the book and see the movie.


The books are always better than the films (especially in a story like this with multiple unreliable narrators.) Some adaptions are better than others, and this one just failed. The film did not give the characters enough time to develop or for the suspense to build. The whole exercise seemed rushed and incomplete. I also thought the casting of Justin Theroux was a mistake. He seemed creepily guilty right from the start (although I suppose I might have felt differently about this had I not read the book first.)


"The Girl on the Train" is one of my favorite books! Love all the mystery and suspense in this story! Paula Hawkins is a brilliant writer! Albeit, the movie was a HUGE disappointment! No character development, boring, long-winded and fell completely flat. Emily Blunt was the one saving grace of the film (love her)! She did an excellent character portrayal of Rachel, the protagonist of the story, but the movie itself didn't do the book any justice.


I really enjoyed the book and couldn't get my eyes off the story line and then came the movie, bit disappointing with the movie but loved the book.


My parents and I watched the movie together...talk about awkward during some parts....but I kept having to explain the movie. (i was the only one that had read the book) They had no idea what was going on. I didn't like the movie at all. It seemed to go on forever and it was very repetitive during at times. I agree 100% that the book was better.

77106503
Kayla Taylor YES! Agree, a lot of the parts were uncomfortable. Even if I didn't read the book I still would've thought the movie was poorly done. ...more
Mar 08, 2018 06:20AM · flag

I agree. While the film was lovely, it just didn't do the book justice. We didn't experience the twists and turns that the book had. The characters did not completely make sense in the films, whereas the book characters were incrediblely thought out and fleshed out. The ending of the film also seemed off kilter and rushed in comparison to the book. As I said, it was lovely. However, having read the book first, it felt like it fell short. It's the curse of a book to film adaptation.


The book was better. It almost wasnt the same when I looked at the movie. And what was that about that the movie is in US and the book in UK????????


The movie didn't include enough details. When you read the book you can actually understand the character and how she really felt about her relationship with tom. You can feel her emotions and can know what she really thought about Scotts and Megan's relationship. The movie missed that. It also missed the whole concept of don't judge a book by its cover. When I read the book, that saying really made sense and in the movie you just didn't feel it.


DebbieK wrote: "I really enjoyed The Girl on the Train by Paula Hawkins. However the film did not represent the story well; converting British to American failed and the intense suspense in the book was not portra..." I wondered why the director went and changed the location? Was there a reason? I remember in the book, the narrator describing looking out the train's window at her previous home and describing how all the backyards were the same and the homes were similar in appearance and in the movie, each home was unique.


Samv (last edited Aug 23, 2018 07:13PM ) Aug 23, 2018 07:13PM   0 votes
I thought the movie was amazing, in a cheesy, ironic kind of way. I loved it. The antagonist in the film was so intense, and the main character's passing out was more interesting to watch than read. It doesn't help that I found the book ridiculously boring. lol

Anyway, I loved the movie.


DebbieK wrote: "I really enjoyed The Girl on the Train by Paula Hawkins. However the film did not represent the story well; converting British to American failed and the intense suspense in the book was not portra..."

Aye! This movie was awful. I wanted to shut it off but just had to finish it. Books are a million times better than movies.


The book is 10x better than the film itself. I felt like they made the movie much more dramatized than how everything happens in the book. The book plays better in one's head than the actually film.


I recently finished this book and have not yet seen the movie. I've personally never had a great experience with reading a book that I loved and then seeing the movie and still enjoying it.

While I really enjoyed this novel, I am afraid to see the movie because I just don't think any director or producer out there can ever portray a movie in the way we as reader's experience each book that we read. When we expect this, we will continuously find ourselves disappointed.


I read the book first and watching the movie after having gotten so much imagery and detail from the book made it seem a bit lacking in detail and character development, and reminded me more of a low-budget Hallmark movie.


Zahraddeen (last edited Mar 31, 2018 03:29PM ) Mar 31, 2018 03:28PM   0 votes
The book was awesome... you cant even compare it with the film


The book was far better, though I did enjoy the film as well. A movie can't cover everything that's in a book, and they did change the setting from London to New York, presumably to appeal to an American audience. Really though, I would recommend both the book and the movie but read the book first.


I absolutely was caught up in the characters of the book and experienced every nuance of their story with them. The movie did not represent the characters nor their story at all. Changing the setting did not help either. I wanted to lie on the tracks and let the train wreck of a movie roll over me.


The movie was such a massive disappointment, in my opinion. It was so boring in comparison to the book! And characters were flung about and used so poorly... it was just... ugh. Books are usually better, as we all well know. I shouldn't have got my hopes up over the film. xD


The movie was a disappointment......I absolutely loved the book!


back to top