One of the worst movies I've ever seen

Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

"A Walk Among The Tombstones" Is The Perfect Vehicle For Liam Neeson. He plays Matt Scudder - an ex-cop haunted by a troubled and alcoholic past who makes ends meet by working as an unlicensed private detective. He gets hired by a wealthy drug dealer to find the scum who kidnapped, raped, tortured and murdered his wife, and as he investigates he discovers that she isn't the only one who's fallen victim to the killers - they've been targeting the wives, girlfriends and daughters of wealthy drug dealers - and in the end the movie focuses on the desperate search for a 14-year old girl who's been taken by them.This movie is dark and suspenseful, and Scudder is a dark, troubled and gritty character. From the very beginning the viewer is drawn in because after only a few minutes we become aware of what's happening to these young women with creepy shots of one of the terrified victims being bound and touched by her captors. It's enough to make you feel sympathy for the victims. You want these guys to be caught. You want justice and/or revenge for what they've done. The movie plays on that. It avoids the temptation to become overly graphic with what's happened to the victims. Just a few shots every now and then make things clear. There's a tense and sombre feel to this from the very beginning and that mood never really goes away.Neeson was superb. This character fit him to a "t." I was basically unfamiliar with the rest of the cast. They all did well enough. But they're not what I would consider big name actors. This was Neeson's movie. He would be the draw - his presence in the cast was why I chose to watch this - and he does not disappoint.There were a couple of things here that didn't work especially well for me. I wasn't entirely clear on how Scudder made the connection between the various killings as quickly as he did, and the character of T.J. - a homeless boy who befriends Scudder and becomes his sort-of partner - seemed extraneous to me. The movie could have worked perfectly well without him and I never really understood the point of his presence. But those are relatively minor quibbles. This is a very good movie with a story and performance from Neeson that are first-rate. (8/10)

A Walk Among the Tombstones is a decent movie with a mostly well developed plot and a good cast. It's certainly a tense thriller as Liam Neeson searches for the men whole killed his client's wife. There is a constant eerie atmosphere which keeps you awaiting something huge.Unfortunately, nothing huge ever really comes, every twist and tum throughout is expected, it's something you would see in any other thriller, there is no shocking or unexpected moment. I was not fond of the scenes between Matt and TJ. The writers were clearly going for a "wise man helps damaged kid" scenario that was meant to add heart to to the film, which I think mostly failed, as Astro speaks like he hates Neeson for the entire movie, there is absolutely no chemistry between them. A Walk Among the Tombstones is certainly an enjoyable thriller, but is has too many flaws and predictability to be one I could recommend. A private investigator must hunt down the men who kidnapped and murdered the wife of a drug cartel leader. Best Performance: Liam Neeson / Worst Performance: Astro

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.

I thought this film was a surprise-a Liam Neeson film that had a whole bunch of bloopers in it that I missed completely the first time I saw it. A character gets killed in a shoot out in the park only to seemingly reappear minutes later (he looks almost identical to another actor) and a guy who has been obliterated by several shots fired at virtually point blank range is shown to have survived by wearing a bullet proof vest but a few minutes later is shown dying with the other guy who has just been killed very much alive standing beside Liam Neeson's character watching bullet proof vest guy die. Confusing. Then the bulletproof vest guy guy who has died in the park reappears minutes later injured in a van with his cohort. Whatever. I think the film has some good ideas which are obliterated by this lack of internal logic not at the very end but close to the very end-like they all of a sudden just up and gave up on the film. I think many films pass at first viewing but not at the second one where you are more apt to pick up on an errors in them and sometimes there are really big errors in the film that can really take away from the films appeal. The fact the film is about two off the charts bad guys doesn't change the fact it bombs because of flow errors. I think they made this film too fast.