Skip to main content

These guys are monsters. They're not human.

A Walk Among the Tombstones
(2014)

(SPOILERS) I have to wonder quite what writer-director Scott Frank saw in Lawrence Block’s pulp novel, such that the project kept returning to him over the course of the last 15 years. Even more, that it attained quasi-mythical status owing to a failed attempt to get it filmed with Harrison Ford during that period. Because there’s absolutely nothing in this material, as translated to screen at least, to justify such veneration and compulsion. A Walk Among the Tombstones is a well-made but generic potboiler, one that harkens back to standard issue ‘90s serial killer fare (making the period in which it is set thus seem appropriate for all the wrong reasons), rather than setting its sights on the best and most creative the genre has to offer.


Block is nothing if not a prolific author; more than 50 novels, of which 17 feature alcoholic unlicensed private detective Matthew Scudder (here played by Liam Neeson). Tombstones was the 10th to be published, back in 1992; the third, 1982’s Eight Million Ways to Die, was filmed in ’86 starring Jeff Bridges and directed by Hal Ashby (something of an ignominious final picture for the director, its best known line is “The street light makes my pussy hair glow in the dark”). Perhaps the clichés of the genre work better within context of Block’s prose, but in Tombstones the readily recognisable fails to charm. Yet one gets the sense that the problem lies in the material, rather than Frank’s classical shooting style or the generally solid performances.


Frank has been involved in less-than-successful adaptations before (notably Heaven’s Prisoners from James Lee Burke’s Dave Robicheaux series of 20 to date, another take on the cop/thriller genre), but he’s best known for his acclaimed versions of two Elmore Leonard novels, Get Shorty and Out of Sight (he also did masterful work adapting Philip K Dick’s short story Minority Report for Spielberg).  Most, even more so than Tombstones, he flew his detective fiction colours with a pilot (alas, it hasn’t been picked up) Hoke, based on Charles Willeford’s Hoke Moseley (marvellously portrayed on the big screen by Fred Ward in Miami Blues). So why is Tombstones only so-so? I think because it’s so routine, so undemanding, so formulaic. There are no surprises along the way, only the occasional moment or two where there is a glimmer it might evolve into something interesting. And as a number of voices have observed, not least one whom I saw the picture with, this kind of material has found a more natural home on the small screen of late – usually using the luxuriant pace afforded to instil considerably more intrigue and misdirection.


The Lookout, Frank’s debut, had an arresting distinctiveness and uncertainty about its destination. Both Sam Mendes and David Fincher originally considered it before Frank stepped up to the plate. As he tells it, Tombstones’ protracted development hell also slowly worked its spell on him. He reached the point where, when Neeson expressed interest, it pulled him back in. Most famously, the film had very nearly reached production back in 2002, with Ford starring and Joe Carnahan directing (DJ Caruso was also in the frame at the point of a 2011 false dawn). Ford reportedly baulked at the grim nature of the piece, and at the time it seemed like yet another foolish move from a star who couldn’t see the wood for the trees (he also demurred at the role Michael Douglas eventually took in Traffic). Given what is here, however, and given that Carnahan is one to revel in extremes rather than hold back, Ford could well have made the right choice. Coming out at that point, it would have had its work cut out not to seem like just another after-echo of The Silence of the Lambs; another mass audience serial killer cash-in the likes of which included everything from Kiss the Girls to The Bone Collector. Indeed, given how excessive Carnahan can be, it might have even earned an unenviable reputation as a precursor to the mid-2000s torture porn sub-genre.


Ironically, Frank has been accused of stooping to that very level, even though he shows nothing; which at very least evidences the power of words, intent and an old-fashioned cassette player. Unfortunately, such restraint doesn’t really help to raise the material. His serious mindedness is admirable, but it’s more than story deserves. This has also happened elsewhere recently. Even Fincher couldn’t make airport fiction The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo anything other than very well dressed airport fiction (the distinctive quality of Seven, displaying both narrative surprises and a moral and philosophical underpinning, seems to elude him even though he keeps going back to that genre well).


Scudder is introduced during his lank-haired, toothpick chewing, hard-drinking cop days; he’s on the scene when the robbery of a bar occurs and the consequences led him to put a cap on the bottle. A leap to 1999 and Scudder is clean and sober, taking jobs for “gifts” (as he is unlicensed). He is put in touch with drug dealer Kenny Kristo (Dan Stevens) whose wife has been kidnapped and murdered, even though Kristo paid the ransom. Scudder soon discovers this isn’t an isolated incident and, as is always the case with such depravity, he figures the perpetrators are going to strike again very soon.


The premise is a reasonably twisted one; killers preying on drug dealers’ nearest and dearest because they know the dealers won’t go to the police. Early on, there’s even an intimation of supernatural goings-on, of the sort hinted at in True Detective; curiously the scene that encapsulates this (one stupidly spoiled in the trailer) features Ólafur Darri Ólafsson, who appeared in one episode of the HBO serial. Scudder trails Ólafsson’s character, Loogan, to a rooftop where Loogan mutters dark foreboding comments about the evil Scudder faces and promptly steps off, falling to his death below. Alas, the ensuing gumshoe work is strictly pedestrian as leads rather fall in Scudder’s lap with little exertion on his part.


It doesn’t help matters that Frank chooses to make an array of meta-comments on the tropes of the genre; they serve not only to highlight the coasting quality of what we have here, but are delivered in a groan-inducing manner (there’s even a conversation in there about good names for detectives addressed to Mr Scudder!) Unless you’re Shane Black one of the very worst things you can do is introduce a kid as the tec’s sidekick (God, can you imagine how horrific that would have been with Ford?), unless you’re fully intent on sabotaging your movie. So here we get a young African American urchin (TJ, played by Brian Bradley) with brains, designs on being a PI, a smart mouth (fogey Scudder doesn’t understand him, how endearing!) and a life-threatening medical condition! Of course, the young rascal gets into all sorts of scrapes at the climax because he won’t listen to Uncle Liam. It’s as if we have suddenly detoured into a late-period Burt Reynolds movie.


While one can’t fault their performances, David Harbour (Ray) and Adam David Thompson’s (Albert) devilish duo are determinedly one-note, in a sub-Leopold and Loeb way. Their unreconstituted malignancy is delivered effectively, but its nothing very original. It is a lot of fun to see Scudder take control of the hostage negotiations, so used are they to dictating terms, but the plot beats are strictly derivative, right down to the showdown at the villains’ lair. Inevitably there’s a basement involved, and inevitably just as we think it’s all over someone leaves one of the tied up bad guys unattended so he can free himself when no one is looking.


Where Frank wins points is with his unexpectedly sympathetic drug dealers (he’s said everyone in this is human, but you couldn’t argue that of Ray and Albert, who are strictly boogeymen). Eric Nelsen and Downton Abbey’s Dan Stevens acquit themselves well, but it’s Sebastian Roche who really impresses; usually consigned to bad guy parts, and here playing a traditional bad guy, he is revealed as a sincere family man who just happens to sell illegal substances. Also, if they ever make The Gordon Ramsay Story, he’s a shoe-in.


Frank’s direction is pleasingly unfussy. Clean, uncomplicated camerawork accompanied by editing that is refreshingly neither frenzied nor confused. As a result it’s all the more noticeable when the director injects a stylistic flourish; the freeze-frames during the graveyard shootout; the queasily show-stopping slow-motion when Ray and Albert sight their latest victim. Accompanied by Donovan’s Atlantis, there can be little doubt Frank took his cues from Fincher’s Zodiac, which also took an innocuous Donovan song (Hurdy Gurdy Man) and made it as sinister and unsettling as could be. 


Frank handles his action with aplomb too. The opening shootout is enervatingly casual, such that the anti-gun speechifying comes across as suspect and a tad hypocritical. Several of Frank’s most enthralling scenes revolve around their use, including his hero, Dirty Harry-style, blowing the remaining perp away in cold blood; it’s never good to brandish guns, except when there’s a really nasty bastard out there pushing Liam too far. That said, there’s also a really nifty little moment where an unarmed Scudder (quite absurdly) punches out the lights of a DEA guy through a door window in (a moment also spoiled in the trailer).


The pre-millennium setting is tepid window-dressing. In addition to the unnecessarily intrusive talk of Y2K (it’s a lazy way to set the place), a sighting of the Twin Towers and much use of public phones, there’s a sense Frank is trying to inject a retro-‘70s vibe into the retro ‘90s period dressing. It doesn’t really help because the ‘90s is so faceless, even with a “grand” event like the Millennium Bug to define it.


A Walk Among the Tombstones is predictable, but it isn’t disagreeable as such.   It’s a particular failing that it flaunts such a grim plot, yet has no discernable substance to justify itself; only the mechanics of its narrative devices. The fates of the victims don’t really matter because this is just another pulp thriller, when they should. A similar complaint could be levelled at the characters across the board. There’s no thematic depth or emotional weight, which you don’t need but it helps if there's already a lack of sufficiently distracting twists and turns or intricate plotting. Otherwise, your picture ends up seeming rather run-of-the-mill. At least Frank doesn’t labour matters. He cut Ruth Wilson’s scenes as Scudder’s partner; it’s just a shame he didn’t cut TJ out as well. 


Tombstones probably won’t do well enough to guarantee a sequel (even the relatively much more successful Jack Reacher was touch and go for a follow-up). I like a good detective thriller and, before I saw it, and with notional hype regarding a great unmade script, I would have been disappointed to think we wouldn’t see a series of Matt Scudders. But, if Tombstones is representative, I don’t think drawing a line in the sand here would be a bad thing. Except, of course, it means Neeson gets more time to make more Takens and similarly scintillating action fare.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

That’s what people call necromancer’s weather.

The Changes (1975) This adaptation of Peter Dickinson’s novel trilogy carries a degree of cult nostalgia cachet due to it being one of those more “adult” 1970s children’s serials (see also The Children of the Stones , The Owl Service ). I was too young to see it on its initial screening – or at any rate, too young to remember it – but it’s easy to see why it lingered in the minds of those who did. Well, the first episode, anyway. Not for nothing is The Changes seen as a precursor to The Survivors in the rural apocalypse sub-genre – see also the decidedly nastier No Blade of Grass – as following a fairly gripping opener, it drifts off into the realm of plodding travelogue.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.