Good story, Not enough for a whole film

There are better movies of two hours length. I loved the actress'performance.

Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

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.

Simply a quite fun film to watch. It was both interesting and catching to me, from scenery to acting to story. I never read the book, but the film itself was definitely worth my time. I would, however, like it more if there were a bit less "remember girl x" talk and a bit more wide open forest and mountains shoots.Overall, super recommended.

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.

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.