A Walk Among the Tombstones (Movie)

Another Liam Neeson shoot 'em up action film ala Taken, Taken 2, and Taken 3?  Not really. Although he is in it, it's more of a slow thriller.  Although it's about kidnapping, so I guess technically it's Taken 4.  (BTW, is it still kidnapping if the napper takes adults?  The word has such evil connotations but the "napping" seems like such a prim and proper word. Like saying something is the bees knees.  Which is another phrase that makes absolutely zero sense.  And besides the parent of two young children, I actually look forward to kid naps.)

Anyway, this isn't a high octane explosions and gunshots type thriller.  It's actually very dark and moody.  No shit right?  I mean, look at the the title of the movie. That's a dark title.

Overall, I thought it was pretty good.  Some parts did seem a little forced though.  I didn't really get why the kid was needed.  Now don't get me wrong. I thought the kid (whose name, according to IMDB is "Astro."  Although it also says he was born as Brian Bradley.  Which also seems like a fake name.) was awesome.  He did a great job acting.  I just don't know why he was in the movie.

Is he going to live with the white, alcoholic ex-cop now working as an unlicensed Private Investigator now? Liam Nesson is a super hero in his eyes?  Why was this kid in the movie?  For redemption you say?  Well I say bollocks.  (Which is something I never say but it seemed like it would be funny after the whole "kidnapping" thing.)

Nesson's character needs redemption because he accidentally shot and killed a little girl while drunkenly pursuing and shooting at some robbers (one of whom was presumably a killer) around NYC one morning a few years back.  This leads him to quit the police force and get into the lucrative unlicensed PI racket.

But during his investigation of some kidnapping being done by some seriously creepy guys, Neeson rescues a young girl from the pair. She even looked to be roughly the same age as the girl he killed all those years ago.  Shouldn't that be the source of his redemption?  Or would that be too obvious?

The kid's main purpose, besides showing the Neeson's character cared about the little guy, was that he hid in the kidnappers van and helped figure out where they lived. Could the writers not figure out another way to have that happen?  Or maybe they could have just ended it in the graveyard, since that was the title of the movie after all.

Also, why did the drug dealer have to die? Was that some sort of "crime doesn't pay" message? It was completely pointless. The one drug dealer got to get his daughter back, while the one that actually helped find the kidnappers had his wife and brother killed by the kidnappers, and then they killed him as well.  Put that way, it almost seems unfair.

I have way more questions now, after writing this, then I did when I finished the movie.

My favorite part of the movie was the juxtaposition (if i'm review movies, I'm obligated to use that term at least once per review) of the 12 AA steps with the actions/activities at the end of the movie. Maybe it was a little obvious perhaps, but sometimes there isn't anything wrong with obvious. And I'm not familiar with the 12 steps, so it's not like I knew what was going to happen next because the 7th step in AA is "Humbly ask Him to remove our shortcomings."