At the beginning, when each heroine appeared on the stage, he would type out a name. I thought it was a parallel narrative from the perspective of the role; The director seemed to be unable to play any longer. Only the final perspective was switched. Most of the time, it was Rachel and the objective perspective. Only a few occasional episodes had the subjective perspective of other heroines. Every time when time goes back to the past, there is an interval between subtitles, but when to go back to the present from the past, uh, it’s not very clear, at least not very clear at the beginning. You have to think about it and get used to it for a while to understand this law. But the old Paul said that once the audience starts to think about the rules and extended meanings, then the audience will be pulled out of the plot and your story will fail.
In fact, I still like this dog-blood story. I saw it, although I knew it was not that simple several times, but before she met her ex-husband's leader, I always thought it was the heroine who killed her.
Maybe it's just that I personally have a good impression of this kind of crime, psychological story.
So this story tells us that what you think and what you see is not necessarily the truth.
BTW, I really hate that female police officer. At one time I thought this story was about the improper service of the police and the killing of people under the pressure of public opinion...
View more about The Girl on the Train reviews
