paul-nicholson
So many things in this movie didn't work for me.
I've read many of Bill Bryson's books and I get his style and humour. I don't think the director did.The casting, I didn't think Redford was a convincing Bryson, maybe Nolte would have been better cast in the lead. Redford is too refined and clean cut. Then, as Bryson's wife Emma Thompson didn't work for me either, there was no chemistry between them. I suffered the first hour and a half and fell asleep, I really should have quit earlier.
szatanica
It's slow, focused, full of nature. It's the opposite of Hollywood-style, extended, overfilled story, where one sentence can reverbarate for several minutes, and let's you think for a moment. It's almost like you can meditate in the cinema and you leave the theater refreshed and calm and happy. It's a lovely story, very funny at times, romantic in terms of our connection to nature and the universe. I love to come back to it from time to time, became one of my 'allways-must-haves" on the video shelf.
Hick_N_Hixville
Robert Redford cast himself as an 80 years old writer hiking the Appalachian Trail.That ought to be worth some laughs, and it is. I went into the movie not having read the source material, so unlike probably about 80 percent of the reviewers, I had no frame of reference for calling out its heresies. And who says movies have to be exact to their source material anyway? Kubrick's The Shining will always be better than Stephen King's own mediocre, but very faithful, miniseries version.The ages of the actors didn't bother me. It added to the humor. No, very few people Robert or Nick's age hike the AT, but a few do. Every year. If the movie had been about college age buddies hiking the AT in their stylishly correct trekking gear, it would have been boring. Nothing interesting in seeing that.So how could the movie have been better? Casting certainly. Who? Well, how about the middle aged gang from Sideways? Call it Walking Sideways in the Woods. Paul Giamatti as Bryson, and Thomas Haden Church as Katz. They are closer in age to the source material, and could have done more than believable justice to the roles. Cast Jessica Hetch (Victoria in Sideways) as Bryson's wife, and Sandra Oh as the annoying lady hiker.Who for the randy motel lady with a thing for Bryson? Virigina Madsen of course.What about Katz's laundromat wannabe lay? Cammi (Missy Doty) from the BBQ joint of course. And the same husband (M.C Gainey) as her monster truck driving husband here.Miles' mother (Marylouise Burke) could have run the hiker hostel, or been the waitress at the "Sorry We're Open" Choke and Puke.That probably would have been a better movie. Well I know it would have.But it's funny the way it is, just not as funny as it could be.
Kristine Licis
I love the book, so I was understandably excited when it was announced that there would be a movie based on it, with Redford and Nolte, no less. Turns out the movie has nothing to do with the book, and it feels as if nobody involved in the movie read the book, or understood it. The book is about hiking, about how the scale and distances acquire totally new meaning when your'e on foot. It's about the Zen of making one step after another. It's about having the time to notice the details in the landscape. It is about hating the hiking, and being enthralled by it. It is also about curiosity, and about self-mockery as a constant background hum.In the movie all of this turned upside down. The hiking becomes an afterthought to motels, restaurants and poor attempts at jokes, the character of Bryson comes across as self-righteous and narrow-minded, the curiosity has been replaced with didactic and pompous recital of facts. The addition of the "Ledge scene" is worst of all, the conversation among the protagonists jarringly out of sync with their supposed characters.If I hadn't read the book, I'd probably look at the movie as simply a mediocre comedy. But if it presumes to be based on the book, I have to say it has let the book down. Sad, really.
AD
