Walden

I feel like the pacing and writing was massively meant for television. It was good film but but protracted at points and then wrapped up too quickly. It felt it had threads to unwrap but none of them did in a one hour and forty minute film. Acting was great and production very good but it did, at times, feel like a television series.

Main guy camps up the main role but presumably on purpose to make it feel less droll with the subject matter in hand which at times is as dark as it gets.

Enjoyed this but interested to know if it was meant instalments which might mean more films or a spin off series.

This will go down in years to come as a cult classic.

Characters in this film are nothing short of wonderful.

The acting is spot on, a lovely storyline of revenge and honesty.

A soft hearted Court reporter gets fed up with seeing bad guys go free and takes it upon himself to deal out a bit of self justice, then his friend gets wrongly accused of an evil crime so he goes after the real perpetrator.....

At first I thought it was a comedic affair, but it turns out to be a unique quirky thriller with a twist or two.

Well worth a watch , I cannot understand the poor reviews. I loved it from start to end.

I'm only halfway through at the time of this review. I reserve the right to return and edit this review, if they let me. That said Walden is - so far - a phenomenal movie.

It's visually beautiful. I love the vintage mixed with 22nd century. The clothes and scenery is giving '60s retro mixed with thin-tablets.

Early on I can't decide if Walden, the protagonist, is creepy or just different.

He's a court stenographer, and one of the first shots is of him cleaning his tool (get your head outta the gutter). His stenograph. We get to see the pride he seems to have in it. And then we see him lying in bed, praying, wearing Louis Vuitton pajamas. Creepy? Or different?

"No one gives a damn. Why should you?"

Walden is directed by Mick Davis and stars Emile Hirsch, Shane West, Kelli Garner and Tania Raymonde.

When small town court stenographer Walden Dean discovers he has a terminal illness he decides to become a vigilante to punish the people who deserve it. Emile Hirsch gives one of his best performances here as what I could only explain as "Dexter if he was on the spectrum." Seriously he really sold this role. His performance might come across as grating to some but I thought it worked for this movie.

Overall this movie isn't great but for a DTV thriller this was engaging to watch and competently made. The ending also sets up a sequel which I would be down to see.

I watched this movie in an effort to join in on comments at another site just for fun and got hooked instead. Like Roman J. Israel, Esq., starring Denzel Washington playing a legal savant with little else in the brain going for him, this movie reflects on the ranges of savants, from one too dim to be grown up, and one, the stenographer, too tried of injustice to allow it anymore. The story then delves into the ranges of vigilantism. When does it go too far? Is it always too far? But, the movie delivers this story with a lighthearted approach almost to the point of campiness, but managed to avoid it and give us a very satisfying ending. After the ending, have a discussion about how far you might be willing to go or would be willing to turn your head from or even condone. Well done.