I really like Bill Bryson's gentle, whimsical, poignant story telling. He has a great gift to spot the interesting side to common situations most of us miss. He has no problem pointing out his own failings or acknowledging the strengths and abilities of others. And so I was looking forward to seeing Ken Kwapsis's movie version, having read and enjoyed the original book shortly after it was released in 1998. 'A walk in the woods' gave more insight into Bryson than the travel based books of his I had read, and I really enjoyed it.
Sadly, this film doesn't even come close to capturing any of the strengths of the book. I recognised a few scenes, but they were slapstick caricatures of the sorts of amusing situations that do occur on long bushwalks, or moments of insight into the foibles of our lives.
Bill Bryson was born in 1951, and 'A walk in the woods' was first published in 1998, when he was 47. So I suppose he would have been in his mid 40s when the trip took place. What those in charge were thinking of when a nearly 80 year old actor was cast to play the lead, even a fit one like Robert Redford, I cannot imagine. Nick Nolte as Bryson's accomplice looked and acted equally frailly, reflecting Stephen Katz' ability, or more accurately lack of, to look after himself. This was the film's first and for me most fatal flaw – there is just no way these two could have done even a tenth of what was being portrayed.
Most of the supporting cast were superficial, or lacked the subtlety of the original. The only convincing character for me was Emma Thompson as Catherine Bryson, Bill's wife. But the gentle pace of the film seemed about right, even though it meant being selective about which parts of the book made it to the big screen. It's not the sort of adventure that would reward a feeling of haste.
The film didn't seem to make the most of what I suppose must be amazing scenery – much was shot in in flat light from moderately overcast skies.
There are a few long walk films around at the moment – Reece Witherspoon pulling herself back together on the Pacific Crest trail in Wild and pilgrims Walking the Camino spring to mind. And both of these are far superior films in my view.
Sadly, this film doesn't even come close to capturing any of the strengths of the book. I recognised a few scenes, but they were slapstick caricatures of the sorts of amusing situations that do occur on long bushwalks, or moments of insight into the foibles of our lives.
Bill Bryson was born in 1951, and 'A walk in the woods' was first published in 1998, when he was 47. So I suppose he would have been in his mid 40s when the trip took place. What those in charge were thinking of when a nearly 80 year old actor was cast to play the lead, even a fit one like Robert Redford, I cannot imagine. Nick Nolte as Bryson's accomplice looked and acted equally frailly, reflecting Stephen Katz' ability, or more accurately lack of, to look after himself. This was the film's first and for me most fatal flaw – there is just no way these two could have done even a tenth of what was being portrayed.
Most of the supporting cast were superficial, or lacked the subtlety of the original. The only convincing character for me was Emma Thompson as Catherine Bryson, Bill's wife. But the gentle pace of the film seemed about right, even though it meant being selective about which parts of the book made it to the big screen. It's not the sort of adventure that would reward a feeling of haste.
The film didn't seem to make the most of what I suppose must be amazing scenery – much was shot in in flat light from moderately overcast skies.
There are a few long walk films around at the moment – Reece Witherspoon pulling herself back together on the Pacific Crest trail in Wild and pilgrims Walking the Camino spring to mind. And both of these are far superior films in my view.