A Walk Among the Tombstones

I don't know how Liam Neeson does it, but ever since Star Wars, he’s been on a roll as the toughest, no-nonsense guy in Hollywood. First it was Taken, then Unknown, The Grey, Non-Stop, and now, as Matt Scudder in A Walk Among the Tombstones. Once again, he’s playing the same kind of gritty, straight-shooting character—and honestly, I don’t mind at all. Sometimes, I wish I could handle things the way Liam does in his movies. But this film isn’t just carried by Neeson. It’s a solid, well-crafted crime thriller that delivers exactly what the title promises. The cinematography is so good that five stars almost don’t feel like enough. Oh, and I’ve got to give a shoutout to Ólafur Darri Ólafsson. His role wasn’t huge, but he nailed it, and that definitely counts. (12/31/2014)

Not only is this film not the peak of the genre but it is, in fact, quite a ways away. The culprit is the script, which cooks from proven but old and worn ingredients and the worst thing is that it doesn't work with mystery. The evildoers are known to the viewer, and there is simply no tension from their revelation. Scott Frank was probably supposed to replace it with atmosphere, but he didn't have the strength for it. A Walk Among the Tombstones is not an atmospheric film, and the comparison to Schumacher's 8MM is simply completely wrong. If Frank succeeds in building tension, it is thanks to the use of proven genre clichés, which any movie fan will consider somewhat overused. Another objection I have is (it is, of course, only my problem) that the most feared hunter of organized crime in retirement alias Liam Neeson slightly disgusted me with his acting in the various derivatives of Taken, so I did not perceive his experienced acting as a contribution. However, the film would still be good enough for a genre average and 3 stars, but there is also the anemic black boy, who, of course, was abandoned by his mother and found meaning in life through collaboration with the main protagonist. I am particularly sensitive to this trick, and the film loses one star because of it. I would only react worse to a blond blue-eyed girl suffering from leukemia, whom our brave detective platonically falls in love with. Overall impression: 40%. (09/28/2016)

This film will remind you of the golden nineties, as it offers a perfect noir atmosphere that will keep you on the edge of your seat. Scott Frank was previously a name I associated with quality screenwriting, but here, he also took on directing, and the result was worthwhile. Besides the initial action sequence, which was quite substantial, the film doesn’t offer many action-packed moments; on the other hand, it succeeds in depicting characters and creating a fantastic atmosphere. Liam Neeson is truly born for such roles; here he plays an aging detective who takes on a case that isn’t particularly pleasant. The main duo of villains might have been revealed a bit too early, and I agree with most people on that; it would have been better to play around more with their unknown identity and then surprise the audience. From this perspective, it can be considered a downside. However, I liked the cinematography and the script that was without any major plot holes. The ending was worth it, and well-executed; those expecting a one-on-one fight will be satisfied. A quality detective film. I give it 76%. (04/19/2018)

Neeson walking for some money. First I have to say that Liam Neeson is one of my favourites, but this film is definitely his weakest. There is literally nothing interesting and certainly nothing that I haven't seen in any other film that happens here. It's cliched and boring at the same time. There is very little action and it is so uninterestingly shot that you hardly even notice it. Fans of slow, boring and uninteresting films built solely on story, which I also found unexceptional here, might be happier. I haven't had as much trouble watching a film to the end as I did here in a long time. (10/15/2014)

A Walk Among the Tombstones is a noir film for people who don't know all that much about noir films and badly want for them to be like this. I don't hold any major grudge against it, and after the prologue (a smoke-filled morning bar, haggard bartender in the background, the shot through the coat, a scruffy Neeson and his drunkard’s dance on the stairs) I even found myself thinking I might love the film, but then the individual flaws began to line up behind each other at an increasingly less tolerable frequency. There are an awful lot of unnecessary characters who are given way too much space, a lot of the actors are obviously quite badly miscast (Dan Stevens, Sebastian Roché), and there are some merciless screenwriting perversions in an attempt to justify their existence in the film ("Dani here has a sniper rifle, but he's short-sighted, so give it to the junkie here who goes to AA meetings with Neeson and has been weaving her way into the frame so we can get some closure"). Besides, the early unmasking of the central killer duo made it impossible for me to stop thinking about Cronenberg's A History of Violence, which worked incredibly better with this motif. (02/17/2015)