I have just finished watching this, and wish to record my critique of the film while it's still fresh in my mind. First, let me say how disappointed I was. Bill Bryson himself has purportedly stated on record that he was impressed at how the film captures the spirit of the book. I disagree wholeheartedly. As a huge fan of all his writings, this work is one of my favourites, and I have read it many times. The film completely misses the warm and engaging nature of the book. We are subjected to preachy lectures from Bryson (Robert Redford) at various stages of the film, which are a world apart from the concerns that Bryson expresses in his writings about the current state of preservation of flora & fauna in the book, and specifically how the National Parks Service have actually worked to the detriment of these. Other reviewers have spoken of the complete miscasting of Redford in the leading role, with which I agree, but I also think Nolte was miscast-I've always pictured Jon Lovitz in the role. Emma Thompson was woefully underused-if you've cast an actress of her talents, use them, or cast somebody less well-known in the role. The same could also be said of Mary Steenburgen. Huge chunks of the book are left out, which is perhaps to be expected when making a film, but it's puzzling why certain sections were chosen, and others left out. There are also parts of the film which are complete invention, such as the bears invading their camp, and the falling off the trail, and one section which has been lifted from one of Bryson's other works (The Lost Continent). Bill Bryson is a much accredited writer, whose works have drawn praise from all sectors of the professional world, so why did the screenwriters (Rick Kerb and Bill Holderman) think they could do a better job?.. Finally, the AT winds its way through some of the most breath-taking scenery in the Eastern USA, and yet the film does very little to illustrate this, and feels more like a student production in its editing and cinematography. At least in 'Wild' (2014), when Reese Witherspoon did a similar thing and walked the Pacific Crest Trail, albeit for very different reasons, the scenery was one of the stars of the film... Lovingly and beautifully filmed by Yves Bélanger under the direction ofJean-Marc Vallée-perhaps Canadians do it better, eh?.. The acting from the two leads is stilted and wooden-another sign of poor direction. So, in summing up, I've said it before, and I'll say it again... Forget the film, read the book instead-you'll enjoy it far more, and it'll make you want to read his other works (I own the complete collection). Unfortunately, Mr Redford, you've let yourself and all the rest of us down badly on this occasion.Yves Bélanger

I had a group of 6 friends over for a movie night. We all enjoyed this movie very much. Apart from the humour, there were moments of pathos as well as the wonderful scenery. Bryson's book is my very favourite non fiction book. It has been a hugely popular best seller. I think that explains a lot of the disappointment and criticism that the film version has attracted. Naturally, there's a lot more in the book and the film has a couple of inaccuracies. Unfortunately this is true of many movies based on books. Admittedly Redford and Nolte were too old for the roles. Bryson and his friend Katz were only in their mid 40's when they did the walk. However, as our viewing group were all over 60, the older ages of the two actors added another dimension to the movie that we could all relate to - the challenge of a last great adventure before senescence really starts to set in. All in all a pleasant uplifting movie, which I could watch again.

All I could think to myself during this movie was: Bill Bryson must be so mortified.First of all, I have read ALL of his books and the Robert Redford portrayal was NOTHING like how BB comes across in his very witty and intelligent books. NOTHING! And like many other reviewers have noted, he was also much younger than RR when he did this walk.The movie was too slow and I didn't get a good feel for the main star: The Appalachian Trail.The book is a million times better in every respect. Just bypass this awful movie and read the book instead.

I was rather baffled at the start because the film's premise was that Bill Bryson had never hiked the Appalacian Trail, while I had read the book about it many years ago. In the film, an elderly version of Bryson meets up with his old friend Stephen Katz (Nick Nolte, very good), I found myself wondering whether my memory was defective, because he must have been much younger in reality, but then I realised that Robert Redford wanted to make the book into a film, it had taken him decades to achieve this and his own participation was essential. Given Redford's age, the poetic licence had to be stretched and the friends were now old men. It still works, however.I enjoyed it very much and it works, as a gentle entertainment with a not too demanding plot. It bends the truth in many ways, but no matter. I decided to take it at face value and at this level, it worked. I will now go back and read the book again, which is well worth doing.