Walden

Unlike other critics here, I did not feel this movie was slow-paced or boring or uneventful. I think some people just need lots of action, murder and thrills when they watch anything these days. In my opinion this movie is very good, but not great. I think the main issue lies with the main character. Anyone who has lived in the south for a considerable amount of time has known a guy like Walden. The seersucker suit, bow tie-wearing, seemingly asexual, forever single goober who's everyone's friend and shows up at ever social function to talk everyone's ear off is a staple character in every southern town. You always sense there's something dark underneath that person, but you hope to heaven that darkness never comes out. Hirsch really gets ahold of that stereotype and manages to put some additional layers in to make the guy not totally creepy, annoying, or unrelatable. The problem is that I never felt like I could get on his side. It might be because neither his backstory nor his medical revelation seems as effectively sympathetic as the writer may have hoped, or because his actions seem more motivated by selfish, psychopathic desires rather than to rid society of bad people. I think the ease with which he commits these acts right from the beginning makes his psychopathic nature eclipse any sense of his main motivation being justice. Whatever the case, Walden is definitely a complex character, just not a likable one.

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 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.

'Walden; isn't too highly rated on here at the moment and I think it's mark should be higher than it is. It is an entertaining movie with a fine performance from Emile Hirsch in the lead role. He is awkward, a little odd and convinces as the character.

There are overtones of 'Dexter' which quite a few people will think as they watch this but 'Walden' stands out on it's own merits and is well worth watching. I thought that the story never dragged and it was interesting to me until the very end. David Keith is good as a sort of mentor to Walden and the rest of the cast are decent. Give this one a try.

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.