User Reviews

Basically this film centers on just two actors, Donald Sutherland and Larry Mullen Jr.

As we all know, Donald is a seasoned veteran but U2 guy Larry is new to cinema, and boy does it show.

I guess Donald has about 3,000 pages of dialogue here to Larry's one page. Larry's excuse is that he is playing a guy (we never know his name) who doesn't say much, although he's on screen nearly as much as Donald.

Basically the movie is about Larry (known as the thief) who arrives in town straight off a train and makes an accidental acquaintance with a Professor, played by Sutherland. Bizarrely, the professor invites the thief to stay at his home, while the thief secretly plans a robbery at a local bank.

It's a very slow film that never picks up speed. Donald acts his socks off, but Larry is so quiet and dull, the film hardly makes an impact.

Without Sutherland this film would have bombed. With a different actor playing the thief it might have been better.

I give it 5/10 because of Sutherland but the movie really doesn't deserve it.

A mysterious quiet man (Larry Mullen Jr.) arrives in the small town on a train. A poetry professor (Donald Sutherland) befriends the stranger and even takes him into his home. The man is in town to rob a bank with Sado (Graham Greene), Loco (Tony Nardi), and Max (Carlo Rota). He and the professor get to know each other as they discuss everything.

Mullen is playing the strong silent type and he does it with his stone face. Meanwhile Donald Sutherland is going off. He's acting for all he's worth with all his experience in tow. I don't see much in this performance for Mullen other than a lifetime of playing thugs with really short lines or playing in a really successful band. He should probably stick to the band. Sutherland is giving a lot here but Mullen isn't returning much. He has a flat monotone voice and stiff facial expressions. Although U2 fans may disagree vehemently. I saw the 2002 french movie, and I liked it for its attempt at a different kind of crime caper but I didn't love it. I have even less love for this one.

Is it a quasi morality play? A screen writing exercise in how to mire an audience in empty exposition? A "page 40 problem?" An experiment in shallow focus and shallow characters? Maybe they just couldn't figure out how to end it? Was it a bad investment? A satire of a drama? Wait. It's not worth the time to wonder.

Consider this short opinion a gentle warning. Larry Mullen Jr., Donald Sutherland, and Graham Greene are the only three positives in The Man on the Train--although I can't imagine what they saw in the script, if there was a script. I regret that I'll never have that hour, 40 minutes, and 10 seconds of my life back.

I had no idea who Larry Mullen Jr was before I watched this movie but I thought he was great. He should have taken up acting years ago. Too busy being the drummer for U2 I guess. Donald Sutherland was good too. I liked the literary references, such a refreshing change to see in a movie. EE Cummings, Bukowsky, Henry James. Hey who doesn't love Henry James? Just joking, probably only me and a few academics. The idea of wishing you had lived someone else's life is intriguing and was handled well. The Professor talks a lot about the choices he has made in his life. The other man (Mullen) doesn't talk about his choices but we can guess what they were. Wish someone would explain the ending though. I liked the ending, just didn't understand it. It was also a very funny movie and had lots of levels, definitely going to be mulling this one over for a few days.

Absolutely nothing happens.

Ok well "something" may have - but I missed it.

Donald Sutherland is a retired professor of poetry living alone in a large Victorian house, listening to Schubert in most of his spare time. He meets a stranger, played by Larry Mullen, Jr.(yes, it is the drummer of the Irish rock band U2), a criminal type who is the complete opposite of the professor.

Mr. Mullen can definitely give up his day job, he is the cinematic acting discovery of the year. His style is that of James Dean in "Rebel Without A Cause" or Martin Sheen in "Badlands," and he matches the veteran Sutherland in scene after scene. The two are terrific together. Mullen possesses a natural, charismatic charm.

A major problem is the soundtrack, which frequently features a piano in the background at a volume clashing with the actors' lines; at times I was wishing for subtitles.

The professor and the stranger with no name ponder each others lives, contemplating the paths they have chosen, a universal theme we can all relate to. The two leads keep it moving along and make it worthwhile.

If this movie was any slower it would be a photograph

This is a two Character Story about regret and missed opportunities and is fleshed out with a bouncy Performance from Sutherland with Rock Star Mullen standing in for the Role of the Professor's Polar Opposite. Mullen doesn't embarrass Himself with the Face of a road weary Soul, drained of energy and Life itself. But He really does nothing more than stand around, or sit around listening to "Words of Wisdom" with barely a reaction. This is not Acting it is showing up.

This is a delicate Movie with Literary Quotes and What If? contemplations strolling along to a somewhat Metaphysical Conclusion. It is interesting and is engaging enough for this sort of Stuff about a gentile Egghead and a tough and smart Born Loser.

Not the kind of Film for everyone and not the kind of Film that is on anyone's Best List. It is a Diversion, a way to escape from all the typical Hollywood Fare. This one is Laid Back and is couched in a Verbal rather than Visceral Style that is easy to like, but maybe just a little too aloof to Love.

I didn't know how to rate this one. For the first 120 min it is excellent. Interesting music, excellent direction, wonderful cast--Donald Sutherland is in top form, nuanced yet clear, perfectly in character. But then came the ending, or perhaps three endings? Fatuous, pretentious, pseudo-"deep," just appallingly bad. I hated it that such great material and worksmanship should end up as such a train wreck. This director showed such wonderful talent, it's a shame she fell for such really bad end writing. She deserved better and should have known better. I look forward to her other work.

I loved this wonderful peaceful movie and can't understand why it has only 5.7 rate by IMDb reviewers. A simple and sensible story (by the way, don't forget that's a remake of a french title). Nowadays, I really enjoy watching movies like this because I'm tired of all those commercial, predictable, boring American movies. The film was produced with very limited resources but with heart and intention. It's one of those who at least makes us think and has not a boring final battle between good and evil. It is wonderful to find a movie that does a lot with so little. Donald Sutherland and Larry Mullen are both great and the simple music is effective and contributes to the intimate atmosphere.

Where do I start? I cannot fathom the lack of skill required to produce odure of this magnitude. Donald Sutherland? Hang your head in shame. You have erased every good work in your career. Larry Mullen? LARRY MULLEN? You are a joke. Wooden would be a compliment to your acting: you are a NO TALENT MEDIOCRITY. RETIRE NOW AND NEVER. EVER. CREATE. ANYTHING. AGAIN. This film is so awful, so self indulgently poor, so comically misjudged I genuinely cannot believe the number of "yes-men" required to get it to commissioning. Everyone involved should question their place in movie making. I am disgusted.

Dear god this movie was almost unwatchable to me. There are scenes so cringy you feel embarrassed to watch it.

But I saw many good reviews here and I said to myself ,, I will check it out, I will stick around until its end, there must be something people liked so much,,.

So I started watching it and already in the beginning Sutherland being dumb old jolly man almost caused me to stop watching that's how much cringy it was to watch him giggling all the time as a character of such low emotional intelligence ughhh This other younger guy that old guy met on a train was even worse. Totally below average robber guy who supposedly starts admiring the old man and his attentive listening during his ,,change,, is horrible to watch. Even when he's supposed to ,,realize,, something and grow he still has that dumb expression that's just annoying. But he's trying very hard to sound wise and serious. Yuck.

They look like dumb and dumber.

Omg and that sound quality is to barf, in some scenes background music is so much louder than actors voices it's hard to follow what they are saying while standing face to face so close you feel embarrassed to watch them.

I mean irresponsible from producers to just leave it like that in a movie, even after sound checks that are supposed to be made before releasing the movie, just plain stupid.

And the chemistry between main two characters; just awfully awkward for god's sakes sometimes you as a watcher are not even able to tell if they are just friendly with each other or are actually flirting (as two gays in the closet).

Oh and listen to this; Younger guy is calm and serious, and an old guy is immature and goofy ughhhh.

Look I don't know what else to tell you dear fellow Imdb-er who's reading this review, I didn't like it one bit man (or a woman ).

This movie felt made in a hurry , low quality, badly directed, cheap...

Best way to describe it is telling you to imagine you have a serious movie plot to film but with cheap porno stars who are trying to switch their acting genre.

Skip it. Run away.

I had no idea what to expect - I was sitting around checking out the new cable TV offerings and this came up. I was immediately caught up in this wacky little story (the path not taken, trading places, etc.). It's very low key for sure but that's a refreshing change of pace as far as I am concerned. The professor was a bit overly quirky (the nutty professor?) but still, if you accept it, it makes the movie that much more enjoyable.

I did not know that the "thief" was a U2 member - and I am glad I didn't know - I may have pre-judged the performance. I thought he was terrific - his character had fewer lines than Southerland but he definitely has an on screen presence that is engaging (I thought he must be some stage actor transitioning to movies because I'd never seen him before and I do see a lot of movies).

I am surprised to see negative reviews. Yes, the ending was a bit confusing but then it all comes together. One of the more interesting movies I've seen in a quite a while. Worth watching for sure.