Recent Posts
Entertainment October 1, 2016
If you had to describe your commute to work in one word, what would you say? Boring? Long? Uneventful? For Rachel Watson, star in the new movie “The Girl on the Train,” a more fitting adjective would probably be “shocking.” The plot of the movie, scheduled for release on October 7, seems simple at first glance. Her character takes the train to work every morning and spends most of her commute daydreaming about the couple living near her ex-husband. The couple seems perfect … until Watson sees something shocking as she rides by their house.
What should you know about “The Girl on the Train” before you go see the film for yourself? Here are seven facts every hardcore fan needs to know!
Back in 2015, “The Girl on the Train” emerged as a best-seller by Paula Hawkins. In fact, less than a month after its release, the book topped The New York Times’ hardcover and e-book fiction lists. Hawkins’ American publisher has also printed 500,000 copies of the book as of July 2015, up from the expected 40,000. Considering that foreign rights to the book have also been sold to 34 countries, one could even say that “The Girl on the Train” has taken her travels all over the world.
The next time you feel like your commute to work is a waste of time, remember that Hawkins first thought of her best-selling novel when she was riding the District Line around London. Although “nothing interesting ever happened” on her travels, she wondered what would happen if you “saw something that shocked you.”
As dedicated readers probably remember, “The Girl on the Train” originally centers on Watson’s commute from the (fictional) Buckinghamshire town of Ashbury to London Euston. Instead, in the movie, the character will ride the Metro-North Hudson line into New York City. For those who want the original “English” feel, Newsweek compares fictional Ashbury to the real town of Milton Keynes. In the end, though, the location of Watson’s commute is secondary to the events that occur that morning.
Have you ever read a book and eagerly gone to the movies to watch it come to life on screen … only for the characters to look nothing like you imagined them? Author Paula Hawkins experienced this dichotomy when she saw the movie’s cast – particularly Emily Blunt. In fact, Hawkins told Daily Mail: “[Blunt is] too beautiful to play Rachel. They’ve done their best, I mean to sort of make her look a bit s**t, but you know…” Before Blunt fans get up in arms, though, Hawkins did admit that the beauty gave an amazing performance in the film.
Regardless of whether Emily Blunt was the right pick for the part, Blunt was intrigued to play a different kind of character than normal. According to Blunt, “Women are often required to be an ideal of some description: pretty or likable or witty. But with this character you feel you just don’t want to breathe the same air as her, and that sort of toxic persona, physically and mentally, I’d never explored before.”
That secret? She was pregnant in real life while shooting the scenes! She told The New York Times that only one person knew: her old friend, Justin Theroux. He guessed it when she seemed anxious over some of the movie stunts. She only filled in the director when she needed to shoot a scene in the bathtub.
While the location might have changed, fans need not worry that they won’t be able to recognize the movie’s book inspiration. In fact, Hawkins has described the film as “shocking, dark and true to the book” yet also “refreshing and different.”
Unfortunately for fans, they have to wait until October 7 to find out exactly what Hawkins meant!
