A Walk Among the Tombstones (2014)

Plot: In the year 1999 a washed up private eye gets approached by a drug addicted about his kidnapped wife that was found murdered. Review: I really enjoyed this movie for two reasons. Reason number one because it is a fresh take on the classic genre of neo-noir crime thriller. Reason number two because at the heart of the story its about friendship. The direction and screenplay are both incredible. Both the casting and acting are incredible also. All in all I would give this five out of a possible five stars.

How many more of these is L.N. going to make. Boring acting, no heart in it at all. Going through the motions to get a paycheck. Stupid ending, not realistic in anyway. Weak action scenes, no suspense. What tombstones are they walking through. One scene in a graveyard, even if it's used metaphorically. Very much of a waste of time. The premise is absolutely ridiculous so far fetched it's like we have no minds. Thanks but no thanks. Please Liam no more, just put some effort into a real movie that forces you to actually act.

The detective story has been a staple of movies for years. Everything from the deductive reasoning of Sherlock Holmes to the down and dirty Phillip Marlowe have been on display, making the private detective a character that can be either slick or down and dirty. Author Lawrence Block has made a career of writing about one detective in particular, Matthew Scudder. While the character has been around since 1976, only one movie has been made featuring him, 8 MILLION WAYS TO DIE. That is until the release this last year of A WALK AMONG THE TOMBSTONES which has just arrived on DVD.Liam Neeson plays the title character, a police detective when the film begins in 1991 and then a private detective 8 years later shortly thereafter. Scudder is a recovering alcoholic due to scenes we witness in the opening. Peter (Boyd Holbrook), a fellow addict who met Scudder at an AA meeting, shows up one day and asks for his help for his brother Ken (Dan Stevens). Scudder reluctantly agrees.It turns out that Ken is a high end drug dealer whose wife was kidnapped. When Scudder tells him he doesn't handle kidnapping cases Ken informs him that he's already paid the ransom and that the kidnappers returned his wife in pieces. He wants Scudder to help him find the kidnappers/murderers.While looking into the case Scudder discovers there have been more cases of victims cut into pieces and dumped around town. As he researches the information at the library he meets T.J. (Astro), a young homeless boy. The pair gradually help one another as T.J. helps Scudder navigate the library's computer. In return Scudder pays T.J. Eventually this becomes a situation where they pair help one another as the film progresses.Using clues to track down information about the past murders Scudder comes to realize that they have all been connected. Each of the victims was tied to a drug dealer in one form or another. This prevented those the ransom was demanded of from contacting the police. With each piece of information Scudder gathers the closer he gets to the kidnappers/murderers. But will he turn them over to those whose loved ones were kidnapped knowing full well they'll seek their revenge or will he contact the police? While these are the basics of the story found in this movie it's more about the journey taken by Scudder that is the heart of the film. Scudder has been a rudderless person when we see him in 1999. He lives but isn't alive. The combination of helping the families of the victims and his own helping of T.J. bring him back to the real world, one he gets involved in rather than merely walks through.The movie and the performances reflect the gritty streets that exists as opposed to the glamorous cityscapes seen in most detective movies these days. Scudder is no slick hustler with a quick $20 in his pocket dealt out to tons of connections. He is instead a diligent investigator who claims it's more about luck while delving into the problem at hand. The world he walks in is drab and dirty, more grays, brown and blacks for a color palette than the bright neon's we're used to seeing. This is the truth of what the occupation offers instead of the glitz most movies offer. In the end it helps rather than hurts the film.Neeson does a fine job here, never yelling or doing the acrobatic styles of fighting most films, including his own TAKEN series, offer. He remains calm in most situations and doesn't carry a gun. When he does arm himself it's the last thing he does. There is even a section of the film where he warns T.J. about the dangers of walking around armed. With Neeson's recent comments on guns in America he still has no problem walking around shooting people when the character calls for it. But the fact is this is a movie and he's entitled to his opinion. The movie hearkens back to some of the detective films of the seventies rather than the typical gumshoe of the thirties and forties. Streets are dirty, killers are despicable and drug dealers live in nice houses but not mansions. As with those films it is the diligence on display by the detective that helps him find the bad guy. In a world overrun with numerous car chases and enough arms to supply a small army it's nice to see a return to this kind of detective. Here's hoping we see more of Matt Scudder.

A movie that attempts to hearken back to an older era of crime drama. It does a good job of doing so, though the repeated mentions of y2k were unnecessary."Was it interesting?" It had unique characters, though some interactions were slightly weird. It's not groundbreaking, but the story was pretty original.2.5 out of 3."Was it memorable?" The cinematography portrayed the city well with abandoned areas, back alleys, rainy and cloudy days. The problem with that is overall I remember it as being mostly gray.2 out of 3."Was it entertaining?" The flashback action scene was real good. The fights later on in the film were not as much, but still rather realistic. You can tell that the film makers were not too afraid of showing things but still knew where the line was.2 out of 3.Starting with 1 (because), 1 + 2.5 + 2 + 2 = 7.5 I'm going to round to 8 because of showing detective work just being interviews, observation, and research. Not being just action, genius, and luck.