Review: 'A Walk Among the Tombstones' starring Liam Neeson

I may as well get this out of the way, this is not Taken 3. I was actually preparing myself to go on a rant about how studios marketing Liam Neeson starring action films try to bank on that every time, so I went back and looked at all of the trailers again. What I found was that it wasn't the studios doing it, they put out pretty honest trailers, it was me equating Liam Neeson with a gun to Taken.

Now that we've got that out of the way let’s talk A Walk Among the Tombstones, the film adaptation of 1992 book of the same name by Lawrence Block. Neeson plays Matthew Scudder, a former NYPD detective turned private eye. The reasons for his retirement are revealed in depth throughout the film but on the surface we know that, while having a few shots of whiskey with his coffee, a bar he’s in is robbed and the bartender is killed. Scudder chases down the three assailants, kills two and wounds a third. After this he retires from the force and quits drinking. The film picks up seven years later, 1999, when Scudder is approached by a junkie who goes to the same AA meetings Scudder frequents. He takes Scudder to his brother Kenny, a prominent drug trafficker whose wife had been kidnapped and murdered. We soon find that this isn’t a garden variety business deal gone wrong, but possibly the work of a serial killer. So, there you see, not exactly what we may have been expecting as it’s not so much bad-ass Liam Neeson but more burnt out detective Liam Neeson with far more investigation than gun fire. But does it work? Partly, I won’t lie to you the film has its problems but I think by the end it succeeds in redeeming itself to bring a nice throwback to noir films of yesteryear with even a little bit of that Se7en feel thrown in. So what works and what ddoesn't Let’s get into it.

I’m going to get the bad out of the way. First and foremost, the film is slow to get started. The first 45 minutes seem to meander somewhat aimlessly. We get story details, and some investigation, but until that 45 minute point it doesn't even feel like Neeson's Scudder is all in…so why should we be? Which leads to the next and possibly biggest problem, Liam Neeson just seems tired. I know a lot of people will say he’s phoning it in, and maybe the two run parallel, but to me his character seemed like he was just getting to work after a night of hard drinking…ironic seeing as how he’s 8 years sober. This isn’t to say that Neeson doesn't still own the character, he does, so much so as to make me question whether Neeson was phoning it in or if Matt Scudder was just supposed to come off that way, after all it would kind of fit how a traumatized ex-alcoholic just trying to scratch out a living until he dies would act, right? Next is the adaptation itself, as I mentioned earlier this film was adapted from a book, when that happens the “adaptation” part is where someone takes the book and rewrites it to work on the big screen in a visual medium. I don’t think I’ve ever criticized this part of an adaptation before but there were several times when conversations played out on screen that something just felt off, it was as if nothing about the dialogue was changed of altered to fit a natural on-screen conversation. You could tell you were hearing good dialogue, but it was like two people reading to each other, it just wasn’t natural. Lastly, and this is such a tiny gripe I considered not including it, is the constant references to establish the year. The film takes place in 1992, then 1999, and for some odd reason they REALLY wanted you to know that, and they did so in the weirdest way. For 1992 it wasn't so bad, just a close up of Scudder reading the paper with a “Nolan Ryan throws shutout” headline…no big deal. The rest of the movie, however, decided to remind you about it being 1999 by dropping Y2K references all over the place. Again, not a big deal, just something that bugged me.

This flick was a weird one for me, there were a number of things that bugged me in the beginning but as the story sped up I grew to like. First and foremost is Scudders friendship with a tough street kid named T.J., in the beginning it comes off like the usual “Old white man helps disadvantaged minority” setups, and maybe it never changed from that dynamic but it definitely grew into something you could appreciate. T.J. who’s played rather well by former X-Factor contestant Astro, becomes something of a sidekick to Matt Scudder and while it is pretty cliché most of the time it does grow into something you can appreciate, you need to see that more human side of Scudder and that’s what T.J. brings out. Next up I have to congratulate the filmmakers on pulling off a good homage to one of my favorite genres, the noir detective films from the golden age of cinema. It doesn’t match perfectly but Scudders attitude, the atmosphere of the film which takes place in the dustier parts of NYC and is constantly soaked in rain, and even some slight nods in the music with a number of scenes backed by ominous tones accompanied by bells (I realize that’s not the best description of the music, but you’d know it when you heard it). So you've got noir blended with some of the 70s detective film tropes (think Dirty Harry) and you've got a winning setup for a detective story. Speaking of, how about that story?

I will say that the story itself is what keeps this film far outside the realm of something like Se7en, but it’s enough to keep you entertained. The murders are creative and the mystery surrounding it is sound, but something in the execution was seriously lacking. If I had to pick what I thought was wrong I’d say it was in the way things were revealed, the movie never makes a big deal out of a reveal. Even if something would have been shocking it’s introduced with so little flair that you don’t even realize something big just happened until you’ve had a minute to process everything. That being said there are two or three “Holy S&@T!” moments, and even if the story lacks punch it doesn’t lack substance. Hell, they even manage to throw in a few moments that are likely to make you laugh (intentionally).

Is A Walk Among the Tombstones going to be for Liam Neeson what Taken was so many years ago? Not likely, but it IS one of his more enjoyable films of the last five years and definitely worth a watch. I don’t know that I can give the full recommendation for seeing it in theaters. There’s not really anything that’s benefitted by the big screen so spending five bucks to rent instead of $20 for the theater is probably the better idea. Unless, that is, you REALLY want to see a good mystery flick this weekend because that is exactly what this film is.

3.5 Out of 5 Guttenbergs