A United Kingdom is a biographical romantic drama re-telling the tale of real life couple Sir Seretse Khama and his wife Ruth Williams Khama. It's a love story defying opposition with triumphant moments within history you probably weren't aware of previously. 

Unity is a common topic to talk about these days, it seems...and A United Kingdom is a film about politics, albeit a biographical one set decades ago. Primarily, however, it's a real life love story about love overcoming great odds. The unity in question concerns Seretse Khama and Ruth Williams, and his native Bechuanaland (nowadays Botswana). When an ordinary woman from Londoner falls in love with a man who turns out to be the Chief of one of the biggest tribes in Bechuanaland (basically a prince), all hell breaks loose for the star-crossed lovers. It's an inter-racial relationship in a time where it was not warmly received, for one.  Secondly, it opens a whole can of political tension worms, involving family tribal feuds, the British empire and the South African Apartheid. A whole load of events take place, lots of "we will get through this together", wrapped up in a film that is overall just quite sweet.

While you have to admire the straightforward love, there's less emphasis on the build-up. There's some meaningful eye contact, a dance, a couple of dates and then BAAM it's like death us do part in 5 minutes. There is some sincerity and sweetness between the two, but I wasn't totally convinced on the "I love you so much I'd do anything for you" part and I think it's simply down to rushing the courtship front a bit too quickly at the start of the film. That said, you do have to admire how loyal they were to each other. Ruth, with being able to pack up everything and move to Bechuanaland for the man she loves without batting an eyelid. The opposition from locals with having a white foreign woman being their queen was harsh but very believable on screen and Rosamund Pike's demonstration of inner strength is admirable. There's also the pressure from their families, colonial authorities, the British government, general rude people on the street, and the fact that it raises such a stance against neighbouring South Africa - whether unwittingly or not. If your love can withstand all of that, people would say "make that into a film" and that's exactly what has happened. It's not just a love story, but a journey - and that's what makes it so charming.

Once the film moves from London to Bechuanaland, it comes to life. The animals, the stunning views, the villages and villagers... I love the natural setting and that they spent a lot of time filming in Botswana - I really felt transported there. The gorgeous plains and simple village life are a stark contrast from the grey and dreary London.

The other contrast between the hopeful newlyweds and the British Empire baddies is somewhat exaggerated - Tom Felton and Jack Davenport play hard-nosed and slimy characters that are written to instantly dislike and mistrust. Poor Felton can't get through a sentence without wrinkling his nose in disgust. Davenport's character Alistair Canning also manages to be constantly travelling the world constantly despite it being the late 40s.


It has a strong message, but the film kinda just stays on one level. Don't get me wrong, it's a consistent level, but it just kinda strolls along, turning pages but this is a book you could easily put down at any given moment. The messages are delivered powerfully, however, and the film's big speeches were the moments that gave me goosebumps. What really works is the way it makes you root so hard for the couple. There's definitely things we can learn here about loyalty, love and defiance.

Ignoring the cheesy poster that's plastered on public transport everywhere (and the acting which borders on cheesy), this is a remarkable story that can inspire you. I never really doubted they would be kept apart, but it's a story of hope and overcoming obstacles and maybe we could use a little more of that in our lives.

A United Kingdom is in cinemas now.


A big thanks to the FDA for the advanced screening!

When I attended this year's London Film Festival, Snowden was quite high up on my 'ones to watch' list. Oliver Stone's latest film casts Joseph Gordon-Levitt as one of the world's most well-known whistleblowers. It casts light on events that happened as recently as 2013 and revisits the real world issue of mass surveillance and 'too much information'. The end result is a solid film that tells the story but unlike Snowden himself, doesn't break too many boundaries.

It's important to note that this is, indeed, a true story. Edward Snowden is a name you'll remember from recent headlines of this past decade, even if you don't remember/know too much about the events that put his name there. Director Oliver Stone has done a great job of putting the whole thing together simply but effectively, mixing up the timeline a little to re-break the news story. It begins with Snowden's first serving of the USA in 2004 - and the film does deliver in servings in a different sense, chapter by chapter building up the bigger picture that leads to the outcome we're well aware of the entire time: Snowden leaking thousands of documents of national security into the public domain. Stone and Gordon-Levitt actually met with Snowden several times, and consulted writers on the topic, so it definitely lends to its authenticity and knowing you'll get more than just a Wikipedia search result.

The film also puts a spotlight on the relationship between Snowden and his girlfriend Lindsay Mills (played by Shailene Woodley). In fact, the two plots become pretty much intertwined and you begin to wonder how much of this has been played up for the Hollywood romance card. For me, the spotlight was shone a tad too brightly. It does, however, bring a healthy political debate into the domain early on in the 134 minutes. It also adds the much-needed human element to the whole thing, and makes "Ed" a guy you want to back - both in his career and love life. It's all very sweet really, especially when you see the sacrifices Lindsay's made for her man including moving to live with him in Russia now.

The supporting characters are more polarising - there's Rhys Ifans as Corbin (not Conan) O'Brian, a CIA senior who oversees new recruits and seems to be a BNIC (big name in CIA). Or in the film version, anyway. He's an exaggerated character there to give you the flip side. He's the mentor figure...he believes in Snowden, takes him out for country walks and shooting and stuff... Then there's Nicholas Cage who plays professor Hank Forrester, and stops you right there to say, "Blimey, there's Nicholas Cage." His role also extends to voicing another opinion and speaking the harsh truth. A very accomplished cast listing extends to include names such as Melissa Leo, Zachary Quinto and Timothy Olyphant, all given quite minor roles.

As mentioned, 134 minutes is unnecessarily heavy; the revelations are gradual but the sense of urgency is almost lost in most places even though it's supposed to be a blatant race against time. It's a solid portrayal but I can't help thinking it could make much bigger waves of impact than simply retelling the story. It feels dramatic yet restrained, though I couldn't pinpoint where and how I'd make it go bigger and better (like this year's Spotlight, on a similar current affairs vein).

On the other hand, one really strong highlight is undeniably Joseph Gordon-Levitt's portrayal of Edward Snowden. It's not just the uncanny voice and the hair and makeup, it's his commitment to the role and ability to command attention as a softly spoken computer genius. I also feel as though I know much more about who he is as a person now, even if it is through somebody else. Obviously casting is an important choice, and they've done very well at it here. Whilst there are many Hollywood stars raising eyebrows through their portrayals of well-known people, JGL is not one of them.

From the get-go, Snowden's painted as a patriot. And the film rests on his disappointment with the government's dealing with spying, essentially. Spying on everyone, that is. You'll be making the decision of whether he still is a patriot, or whether he is a traitor, or simply someone with such a big moral conscience that he simply can't conform any longer. Whether you agree with his actions or not, it does open up a big conversation - one that definitely isn't had frequently enough even now three years after the story first broke. I remember having high school class debates many years ago over whether too much CCTV is a good thing or not, but now imagine that surveillance is everywhere...through your phones, the webcam you've forgotten about sitting on your laptop...  It's a big deal! It's also easy to personify agencies like the NSA, CIA or whoever, but it's clear what sort of personalities they are given in this film, and it's even clearer which side of the fence Stone sits on. Snowden is hailed a hero, but it's almost too much.

One flaw I'd point out is that it seems dreadfully easy for all these files to be obtained. Maybe the filmmakers simplified the process, but it is essentially a flash drive and a clever getaway car*. (*Not actually a car.) In the same way, I think Snowden is actually a bit easy in the sense that it doesn't feel nearly as groundbreaking as it ought to be - and is in reality. Still, it's well worth a watch and you'll walk away from the cinema knowing more than when you went in, reigniting the information debate. And that's not a bad thing at all.

Snowden is in UK cinemas on 9th December.

J.K. Rowling invites you to experience a brand new chapter, full of life, magic and a charming host named Newt Scamander. If you think about it, the plot is really simple: Brit abroad loses his suitcase and a bunch of crazy stuff happens. But it's the fantastic beasts that bring it to life and live up to their name, added to the effortless weaving of all these elements of the wider spell-binding wizarding world. It's no longer just the wizarding world of Harry Potter - the universe just got a whole lot bigger in more ways than one.

It's 1926 and a young fumbling British chap named Newt has just stepped off a ferry and into New York. He's clutching a mysterious brown briefcase and he's here on his own, with not much indication as to why he's here. After a classic sitcom-worthy mishap, the briefcase (which holds numerous fantastic beasts and really doesn't have a very good lock) unleashes a few of these mythical creatures into the Big Apple and before you know it, the game of hide and seek begins.

Needless to say, I grew up with the Harry Potter generation and the cultural shaping of childhoods. Whilst I enjoyed the books and films, I couldn't class myself as a super-fan but I was definitely excited to see what Rowling, Director David Yates and co. could do to stretch their imagination - and ours. This part of the franchise has been growing up with its original younger audience, and now it's no longer about making friends on the first day of high school and encountering bullies, but the big city life - bank loans, demotions and all. Don't expect it to be 'another Harry Potter film' cos it ain't. The feel of it is completely different, but give it a chance to impress you because it surely will. Plus, all the familiar magical tie-ins will be an added bonus. I treated it as a standalone film and was amazed as I half-expected it to fall flat. Turns out you don't have to have a whole series of critically-acclaimed novels when you have the author at the helm of the captivating story and script. And with 4 further installments, she's not going anywhere.

Newt may not be a special kid with a scar, but he carries the film's weight on his shoulders especially well, and he too makes friends in a new place. It wouldn't be a not-Potter-Harry-Potter film without the importance of friendship, and this is where the new characters of Porpentina 'Tina' (Katherine Waterston) her sister Queenie (Alison Sudol), and factory worker Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler) come in. Whereas Potter et al. had 8 films to develop characters, Fantastic Beasts manages to do it successfully (to a lesser extent of course) within the smaller time-frame. Granted, there's only 4 or 5 characters you actually care about, but there's time to grow the wizarding family. Kowalski doubles up as the sometimes-slapstick comic relief, especially since he - like us - is new to all this. You're never short of a laugh when he's on screen. Then there's Tina, a straight-faced demoted investigator who is trying to bring Newt in to the Ministry of the MACUSA (Magical Congress of the USA) and does get less annoying throughout the film as she and Newt grow closer. I remembered her well from the trailers, but it was actually Queenie and Jacob who were the surprise highlights. The more fantastic of the fantastic beasts have heaps of personality and sidekick moments with Newt too.


It also wouldn't be a Potter-ish film if there weren't dark forces and magic lurking about. There's some sort of evil destructive wind sweeping across NYC, a spectre that reminds me of Ghostbusters. Yep. But what is the cause?? Additionally, 'Obscurials' are formally introduced - dark forces created by young wizards who suppress their power, becoming like a parasite in a host body. Unstable and dangerous, it's likely the cause is being abused for being magical. With this, the film actually has a surprisingly dark undertone, and it's all very mysterious although there are answered questions by the end of it. (It almost feels like there are two contrasting films running in parallel for much of it, and it only comes together in the third and final act.) There are also darker characters, with witch-hunting foster mothers, creepy little girls chanting, a brilliant Ezra Miller who plays a troubled and brilliant Credence, and Colin Farrell who plays a manipulative Percival Graves who likes to corner people on dark alleys.

As for Newt himself, he's not claiming to be an all-powerful wizard who can do spectacular things and battle the bad guys; his charm lies in his love for these magical creatures which Redmayne puts across oh-so-sweetly. I really believe his protective love and fascination for these animals (can I even call them that?) and he constantly has this wonderful gleam in his eye. Does anyone really know that much about Newt Scamander's actual character and personality? Redmayne is nearly as adorable as his little CGI creature friends, playing the role in a very Redmayne manner and making him extremely likeable.

On top of all the magic, which is showcased in every shape or form and will be a delight for original viewers and newbies alike (though I doubt there'll be many in the latter group), there's also a bit of everything. From 1920s glamour to superb New York period sets to runaway zoo animals in Central Park. It is over two hours, which is an awful lot of running time given that I can sum up most of the plot in ten seconds. However, there literally is a whole world to explore - and that's only in Newt's suitcase. It starts slow, but doesn't lose momentum at any stage either. The plot is simple but the paradox is that there's so much going on. Although much of the plot is a series of mini adventure after adventure and can be criticised for lacking the depth and complexity of Harry Potter, the heartwarming CGI makes up for it in spades. The 'Briefcase Tour' will be one of my favourite scenes in cinema this year, plus little magical touches (like a wand umbrella in the rain) never get old. The big magical gestures remind us how massive the original scale was, and how it can absolutely still live on in the franchise that redefined magic. Aaaand, the beasts are simply amazing. Did I say that already?


Fantastic Beasts hails the self-confessed "outsiders" in that it's ok - and empowering - to be different. Newt was also a Hogwarts drop-out/expelled student so there's hope for us all who are still waiting for our acceptance letters. There's also more that can be said and delved deeper into about the story and social commentary reflecting the state of our own world.

It truly is a new era - but it's technically an old era so you know what it all leads to so that's comforting isn't it? It was announced that Fantastic Beasts will be part of a 5 film series, and when watching and reading about it, it's hard to think how they could stretch (/read milk) the franchise. I mean, how many fantastic beasts can you keep losing and finding again?! Luckily, the underlying theme rests a lot on the Wizard/No-Maj dynamic (/read tension) with signs of grander things to come. Originating from a charity spin-off fictional textbook, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is essentially a starting point and the front door from which we can now enter. The world of Hogwarts is starting to feel like a bubble - and there's a bigger world out there we're about to see much more of.

Here's a fantastic film and you can find it in cinemas now.

Marvel keep telling - showing - us that they're not one dimensional and they can offer us a bit of everything. The origin story may not be original anymore, but it sure never gets boring. We've had comedy, super-squads, squad break-ups, parodies, TV, big, small, intergalactic and now...Strange. Very strange. With mind-blowing sequences that go bigger and bolder than Inception on steroids, Doctor Strange delivers an other-worldly, satisfying fascination.

In a world far, far away - New York City - there lives a very rich, egotistical and extremely clever man. Nope, not Tony Stark, but a surgeon who will definitely not let you forget there's a "Doctor" in his name. "Doctor Who?" you ask.  (I could make this joke and then after the film explain the Benedict Cumberbatch -> Steven Moffat -> Doctor Who / Timey wimey stuff connections but that'd be revealing my inner geekiness too much so let's not go there at all..) Introducing Doctor Stephen Strange.

After an accident leaves Strange badly injured, and doesn't this sound all too familiar, he seeks recovery in an unexpected, spiritual form that defies physical logic. I'm not even going to delve too much into the astral plane or other dimensions, but let's just say it's sorcery, magic portals, magic sparky hand gestures that become weapons, and flying capes - but the power comes from within. This is what every self-help book should begin with really. Long story short, Doctor Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) is trained by The Ancient One (Tilda Swinton) in the kinda-hidden Kamar-Taj sorcerer academy in Nepal. He conveniently stumbles across this solution that can save his hands and is almost immediately exposed to this strange new world...I'm amazed at how this isn't common knowledge in their universe - The Avengers would have doubled in size by now. The journey takes us from Nepal to New York to London to Hong Kong, in no particular order because you can simply create a portal and jump straight to it. How easy would holidays be?! These sorcerers are in the wrong business.

Of course, like most Marvel plots, there's a big bad wolf. Here, he's Kaecilius played by Mads Mikkelsen who you'll recognise as a James Bond villain. With an evil gleam in his eye, he was once trained by The Ancient One (who really doesn't have a name but I imagine it used to be something like Sally), but he betrays her in a quest for immortality and power. A little like the first Kung Fu Panda film but this traitor has sparkly eye paint or something like that, plus it involves even bigger badder wolves. Rounding up the diverse pack of leading characters are Christine Palmer (Rachel McAdams), Wong (Benedict Wong) and Mordo (Chiwetel Ejiofor). [Side note: so many Oscar nominees in this cast, am I right!?] Wong gets a relatively low-key but crucial role, injecting humour without being the token funny guy. Mordo is one to watch, as the moral compass and a solid sidekick. The complexity within his character is an intriguing one to unwrap.

And of course we have Tilda Swinton and Benedict Cumberbatch, both sought after by the Marvel bosses even though one had an insanely packed schedule leading to the entire project adapting, and one is supposed to be male and Asian...according to the comics. I have to say Marvel were right to stand by these choices, though it has to be said that Hollywood does currently have a huge issue with Asian stereotypes and casting - and this barrier needs to be broken. But given the Swinton situation, it somehow works. Her character comes across wise, ninja-esque, but also surprisingly nice. Also, their compromise between Asian man and Ancient One 2.0 is to make her bald. And then there's Benedict. Sometimes not cocky enough to pull off Tony Stark one liners, but brings the Sherlock arrogance and genius to the table with a just-about-forgiveable American accent. You can tell he really cares about doing this role justice, and he shines in so many ways that his Cumberhuman fans will be beaming from ear to ear throughout. When he finally steps into the super-sorcerer shoes, his screen presence is a sheer magical moment to behold.

The stellar actors still aren't the highlight though. A further dimension - and world - allows for some very creative effects and for the creators to run wild. The visual effects are outstanding, taking the dreamworlds from Inception but amping it up quite a bit. It's beyond trippy and kaleidoscopic, with more moving stairs than Harry Potter and a world where you can drive someone up the wall. You know what it is, it's a cinematic experience. I'd really recommend seeing it in IMAX if you can to bring it to life even more.


There's a lot to get your head around. With the more straightforward plot devices and characters, however, this is where Marvel falls short. Take the love interest, for example. Christine Palmer is a smart fellow surgeon and we know Rachel McAdams is a fantastic actress with superb Oscar-nominated skills. Unfortunately, we don't get to see much of this at all. Instead of the typical damsel in distress role, we don't get distress - or anything - at all, which is a shame. The one moving moment she's involved in doesn't even feature her on camera. More McAdams please! Similarly, Kaecilius is bad, but his evil potential is far greater than what we see.

Whereas we've accepted everyday superpowers in the "real world" Avengers universe, it's slightly harder to comprehend here when you have things like the mirror dimension within shards of glass, spirits coming out of bodies like Just Like Heaven, time tricks a la Edge of Tomorrow and an upgraded Bernard's Watch. But stick with it - and it will reward you in return. Little rewards like quips and Beyonce shout-outs, and big rewards like big budget sequences, mystical martial arts and things you'd probably hate on paper but will fall in love with on-screen.

The plot itself is hardly mind-bending but the full scale of everything will blow you away. There's some cheating involved - but isn't using magic cheating anyway? It's intriguing and makes you long for a bit more...which *spoiler alert* we definitely get in the post-credits scene. You know the drill by now, watch the (supremely hilarious and surprising) mid-credits scene but don't forget to wait some more. Doctor Strange lives up to his name in a film that is fantastically nuts and sufficiently strange with an added splash of wisdom and enough turning points to form a maze. And you'll be amazed too.

Doctor Strange is in cinemas now.

The first in my new Friday Nights In series, Man Up tells the tale of a blind first date gone wrong (or really right?). Watch for the sharp script and funny blunders, not for the surprises. Because there aren't any really - except for a childhood stalker who carries a photo of your room around...

Simon Pegg and Lake Bell star in Man Up, a British and French (apparently) rom-com about taking a chance...especially when it comes to being mistaken for a blind date. The plot is completely summed up by the poster and there are very few surprises as it scores highly for predictability. There's absolutely nothing new, and you know the ending before you've even begun, but it's still hilarious, sharp and very British. I like it because it's set in all the places of London I know well, too!

Man Up has all the awkward ingredients of a first date, with the added element of Lake Bell's character Nancy ordinarily not "putting herself out there" but running with it (because why not?) when she's mistaken for a Triathlete financier ten years younger than she is because she's holding the same self-help book. Seems like a brilliant self-help book too. It's hardly something that would happen IRL but run with it - it's worth it. In the span of just a few hours, with so many units of alcohol consumed, there are a few layers to the plot that make it not just "single girl goes on date with single guy". There's cute family moments, a creepy childhood stalker (a fabulous Rory Kinnear), ex-wives and crashing teen house parties. Who knew there could be so many hours to the day?!

For me, the underrated American actress Lake Bell morphs into a charming Bridget Jones style relatable character as she wears her heart on her sleeve, avoids engagement parties in favour of room service, gets food stuck in her teeth, and carries cat photos in her wallet. We've all been there. I quite like Simon Pegg as a non-traditional-rom-com-guy in a rom-com leading role. (You can judge for yourself on the chemistry.) The rapport is quick-firing and natural, thanks to a great script.

It's all about finding romance and putting yourself out there - I probably won't run into my perfect man (spoiler alert) under the clock of Waterloo Station on my commute, even though it also happens to be my meeting place of choice. But maybe I too should take a chance and put myself out there...anyone up for a blind date?


Man Up is available to stream on Amazon Prime.

For those who know me, I'm always on the go but there's nothing I love more than a lazy girly night in, feet up and telly on. They'll also know I love a good old-fashioned easy-going rom-com. Which is why I'm introducing Friday Nights In for the films I didn't necessarily catch in cinemas first time round, but I'll happily watch and recommend for your next Netflix and chill sesh. Company optional. Yeah, they're not hard-hitting dramas with Oscar buzz, and the scripts aren't perfect and they're years old, but they're just exactly what you need after a long week at work.

I personally like to send out a Whatsapp blast to my trusted gal-pals on these kinds of recommendations, but now you also have these to add to your list. After all, you'll never run out of steam for a good Friday Night In.

Enjoy!
x

The Girl On The Train. There are so many words to play with. Does it stay on track or does it go off the rails? Train wreck or first class? There are so many words to play with from author Paula Hawkins too, however it doesn't quite live up to the hype train. You're in for a partially disruptive ride...

This is a mystery involving a missing woman, complicated relationships and an alcoholic divorcee who rides the train, gazing out the window and people-watching. Rachel Watson (Emily Blunt) goes one step further (cos let's face it, we all window watch), stalking her ex-husband's new family and becoming fascinated/obsessed with their 'perfect' neighbours. Of course, nobody's perfect, and Megan (Haley Bennett) is no different. Naturally, she's hiding secrets. They all are. As the plot unravels, it's not the only thing that unravels because this is a far from perfect film. Whodunnit?!

One of my main immediate problems afterwards concerned Rachel's fascination with the picture perfect #couplegoals couple, Megan and Scott Hipwell (Luke Evans). For it to be such a crucial part of the film, and lead to x, y, z consequences, it needs to be a crucial part of the film. And this never materialises. Rachel passes the dreamhouse, like, a few times and just kinda stares a bit; that's nothing. The basis for so much jealousy is understandable, but not presented clearly enough. I sometimes see the same people on my commute to work but it doesn't make me obsessed. Much more dedicated screen time was needed to forge a vaguely believable trigger. Also, is it believable that Megan just hangs out in her undies in her garden where she knows trains are passing by all day, every day? Elsewhere, key pivotal moments are rushed, and there are other moments where it can borderline feel like a low budget independent horror movie.

It manages to hold the tension, but only just, as the film seems to chug along quite slowly. If you don't know much about the plot, you'll be waiting and waiting on the platform and might not even care by the end. For those who haven't read the book but have heard the hype, it would probably linger towards the confusing end of the spectrum. The game and mystery is given away quickly relative to the book if you can pick up the clues.

I've given this three stars, however, so it's not all red signals or off-track. Emily Blunt is by far the highlight of the film, showcasing her vulnerable side and portraying a very realistic alcoholic in a drunk state. She's also talented at delivering monologues, something she does a fair bit since the film does so heavily rely on them. It tells the story, story by story. She's a conflicted character, and juggles the difficult layers extremely well. And to think Blunt was pregnant when she filmed it. The supporting cast have also been chosen well. Haley Bennett gets the 'vacant eyes' hollow look spot on, and I compare that to her role as Kora in her first film Music and Lyrics and think she's come a long way. Rebecca Ferguson is so good as new wife Anna I didn't realise it was her (she goes blonde). There's also Justin Theroux as ex-husband Tom, able to solidly portray an array of emotions, and a nice unexpected cameo from Lisa Kudrow.

It doesn't match up to the book, but the films are rarely as good, right? The first main difference is that the setting's been moved from London to New York for ya'know, whatever reason. So if you're a die-hard fan of the book, don't expect fireworks. Perhaps the story is a bit dry and one dimensional for the big screen. The tagline "What did she see?" has been plastered everywhere, but all you need to do is watch the trailer and you know exactly what she saw. As a page-turner, it's gripping and took me a mere few hours to read, but unlike mystery fiction like Gone Girl, it is far more straightforward. The characters are also not meant to be that likeable so it doesn't do much to develop them; as a result we don't feel for them as often as we ought to.

All in all, there are some intriguing twists and turns, and I'd love to watch the film without having known the plot beforehand. The flashbacks are eerie and creepy and made me shut my eyes in my seat (longing for a cushion to hide behind), so it does deliver on that thriller feeling. And Emily Blunt delivers in every scene. For whatever reason, at least you'll be on the edge of your seat.

The Girl On The Train is in cinemas now.