User Reviews

The main premise of the film about Walden and his crimes is a very good story that while dark is still funny and sad at times. However, the B plot is a different matter. It seems to come out of nowhere and drags the film into the waters of a gritty police drama about the search for a serial child abuser. Though both parts of the film come together towards the end, when they are switching between the two plots it can give you a serious tone whiplash. Separately, each could work on some level as their own movie. But when they tried to make them into a single film, it just doesn't jell particularly well which throws the film off kilter.

That said, there is some pretty good cinematography on display and all the actors put in good performances. While certainly not a great movie, it's worth a watch.

I've never considered Emile Hirsch to be a great actor, but at least he's alright. I read other reviews on here commending his performance in this, but I guess we must've watched an entirely different movie. To me, his role was simply excrutiaring to watch. Admittedly not entirely his fault, but still it was mostly him who made this movie look like a parody. I thought I was watching a horror comedy. There's also a lot of ridiculousness. When Walden takes revenge on his first purp/vic, without spoiling too much, it appears no one has ever heard of fingerprints in this town (or simply didn't care about solving this murder). Later on, he starts gunning down people as if it were nothing. After which there seems to have been no ballistics done whatsoever. The main antagonist finally admits to countless of heinous acts. He got made due to a minor ''mistake'' (which he could've easily denied by the way, but whatever). This little mistake seemed to annoy him, yet he had numerous of bodies (skeletons) put on display, posed in chairs (that somehow no one had ever come across, even by smell, in such a very small town), for no apparent reason other than shock value for us viewers.

It's a real shame though, I mean, how many times do we actually get to see a movie about steno? It's another wasted opportunity.

The entire movie is an extremely underwhelming story about a very meek court stenographer. Not really anything impressive, here is a list of SOME of the major problems, not extensive by any means. The writing seems like it was someone's first screenplay, especially the dialog, really stiff. The characters and relationships are a joke, not sure what Hirsch is going for with his portrayal. It appeared to me that several of the minor roles were played by people on their first acting job. After brain tumor surgery he still has all his hair and an ace bandage wrapped around his head twice, that's it? That is some soap opera level lameness. Every single drink in this movie is warm liquor in a glass. The oven revenge killing has a guy literally holding his own head down on the burner inside the oven, they couldn't even be bothered to make it look like he was restrained somehow. Walkden has a bunch of file boxes in his house labeled Guilty and Not Guilty that he just tosses his stenographer tapes into, what? They would be filed by case number, not just tossed in a box. This film is at the level of a high school project, don't waste your time.

I wish I had known going into this that there was going to be a graphically re-enacted child killing.

That aside, the movie was really good, really well done, good pace, well acted, well lit, perfect sound, all you could ask for in an original film.

Walden, played by Emile Hirsch, has bits of old themes (cherry picking), but an original overview.

The ending seemed to come a little too easy, but was satisfying none the less.

I, personally, see Emile Hirsch as this generations Jack Black. He's funny, versatile, handsome, and capable.

All in all, I would watch this movie again, even recommend it to others, but skip over the graphic scene. It's the kind of thing that sticks with you.

I live in a world where I often dream about being a vigilante. I sometimes wonder if an opportunity will ever come along, where I can eliminate really bad monsters, who prey on humanity. Especially children, there's never any excuse for that kind of behavior on any level, so when a film like this comes along I find it very refreshing.

I never was a huge fan of Emile Hirsch, though he is a good actor. I consider this to be a truly outstanding performance, he really nailed the nuance, he was able to build a really fascinating and believable character, who was quirky. The script was funny and smart, but at the same time sincere and compassionate.

I really enjoy this film well beyond what I expected going into it. I highly recommend this film for people who don't take themselves too seriously, and understand the potential value of setting limits, and crossing the line if that line needs to be crossed.

So Walden is a mild mannered stenographer who kills criminals that escaped justice ... hmm not sure why but seems somehow familiar?

Walden himself is a good character with a good script and well acted I guess but the supporting cast i.e. Police are truly appalling plus some of the plot / flow is just so erratic. The obviously incorrect arrest with no apparent evidence despite the arresting officer later saying that even he didn't think it was the right person, the end clue that was so minimal and unconnected yet somehow lead to an immediate open confession, plus the nosey girlfriend painfully declaring the end of a relationship that didn't even exist in the first place - it was just so sporadic.

Overall it was all just so ...almost.

I've seen other reviews saying this movie was supposed to be comparable to the show Dexter.

They're not wrong but Dexter was definitely way better.

It was boring and rushed. The "love" aspect was absolutely unnecessary and made no sense to the actual plot.

The preview I saw made the movie seem a lot better than it was and I wish that I hadn't spent 2 hours of my life on this. However, I have noticed that I have been struggling with finding something that really "wow"s me lately.

I enjoy the actors and the acting, my complaints fall on the writing for sure. They tried to tie up every lose end before the movie was over, but it felt too neat and easy to me.

Was the main character doing what he was because he figured he was dying, or was it the tumors that affected his judgement? Why did the judge give it up so easily? Also, he saw a tear in the back seat of the car. How did the main character actually connect that to the kids? Then the guy they originally arrested.... Don't get me started. "Can I show you something bad?" Why would the detectives suddenly think, "this guy showed us this awful place with dead children and called it bad, clearly not our bad guy"?

Maybe the person who suggested it should have been a TV thing was right. One can't shove so much information and confusion into 2hrs and make it coherent.

We need better movies now. Creativity has either been dried up or production agencies have given up. I feel sorry for the scripts that get dropped in the trash because of the restrictions nowadays.

I had never heard of this before and came over it by accident whilst searching through prime video whilst bored .

The story takes a little time to get going but well worth the wait, the acting is very good especially the leads for what appears to be a very underrated movie.

It is more of a thriller than horror there a few murders but the actual violence is off camera mainly and the after math is shown very quickly and not dwelt on although the main crimes involve children so not a pleasant subject.

Overall a good film not a classic and won't win many awards but definitely worth sticking with it .