If Robert Redford ever made a horrible, forgettable movie, it was A Walk In The Woods, with his buddie Nick Nolte.
True, the movie came out more than a year ago, and Traveler failed to review it at the time. Fortunately, I never paid to see it then, and was able to stream it for free the other night. It was painful to see it through to the end; the only reason I watched, frankly, was to see how bad it could get.
Plenty.
Taking two septuagenarians to play two men in their 40s hiking the Appalachian National Scenic Trail was painful and should have been a red flag. Watching Nolte was doubly painful, as he looked as if he might have a heart attack at any time, and sounded like it whenever he opened his mouth.
Showing the two with huge packs (Redford's was said to be 85 litres), and tossing them around as if they were filled with cotton didn't help lend a realistic touch to life on the trail, nor did the shot of Redford burying a "cat hole" he dug in the morning light near his tent and in full view of other tents and hikers. And then there was the snowstorm with sunshine streaming through.
True, this was supposed to be a light-hearted comedy, but it missed the mark countless times.
The film did show the two walking across the Fontana Dam in North Carolina, and had some beautiful panoramas of the Smokies, but other than that, the trail itself didn't play a leading, or even supporting, role.
Bottom line: Don't even waste your time streaming this.
Comments
Agreed. This movie didn't capture the humor of the book or the essence of hiking the trail. Waste of time.
You have not been on the hikes I have. 35 years- average 300 miles a summer. I recognized their encounters & yes they were potraying their age & their reduced capacities. I am 75- hiking- and enjoyed the movie. Perhaps you need special effects, fantasy , blazing action, which predominates today. Try " the hundred yard walk " for another dose of realism.
Perhaps not, but I have hiked the AT. The movie was a poor depiction of the experience. Compare this movie to "Into the Wild". The latter was faithful to the real story and the book and was a magnificent (although lengthy) watch. And it accomplished that without special effects, fantasy and blazing action.
Movies = make believe. Perhaps based an a slight amount of truth; but still, make believe. There were one or two moments in the movie which conveyed positive and real world statments, then others which were inappropriate. Overall, it was not a documentary.
"Movies = make believe." Obviously, but some are much better than others and I think that was the point. Compare Miracle on 34th Street from 1947 with the one made in 1994, vastly different qualities while still being "make believe".