MovieChat Forums > A Walk in the Woods (2015) Discussion > Boring & flat

Boring & flat

posted 8 years ago by mspieway
14 replies | jump to latest

For the record, I have read Bill Bryson's books and enjoy them. However, this movie does nothing to encourage those who haven't.
It might as well be called 'Sleep Walking in the Woods'. I cannot recall any humorous moments, but I can recall the flat sound & facial non-expressions of Robert Redford. Why was an actor close to 80 chosen to play a man 15 years younger? I will give credit to Nick Nolte who showed vitality, probably not easy to do when playing opposite such a wooden-like character.
No story development, no meanings hidden or otherwise, nothing but a waste of time.

[–] supersensational 8 years ago

I actually did laugh a few times, but otherwise have to agree. I am not a Nolte fan, but he outshon Redford in this. I also agree that overall it felt very pointless, there was no real story development and felt like just a bunch of random scenes cobbled together. Strangest were some of the characters they encountered who felt like they would recur because they felt cut off, but they just leave it unresolved.

[–] mindthinkr 8 years ago

I almost expected the crazy chatty girl Mary Ellen to be the one to help save them off of the cliff they got stuck on. That could have been funny.

Be well and be kind

[–] heyuactor 8 years ago

Yes that was what I expected too.

'Two too many':http://www.imdb.com/rg/VIDEO_PLAY/LINK//video/screenplay/vi1055628313/

[–] truetexian 8 years ago

I expected that as well.
Overall though I'm not all that disappointed in the film. I don't need a myriad of explosions nor a mounting body count to intrigue and keep me interested.
It was the beauty of the landscape and man's quest to challenge himself, at whatever age, that held my interest.
I found Redford's "flat-ness" provided a rather realistic contrast to Nolte's constant frackishness. We've all had lifelong friends who, although don't share our temperaments, keep our interests and affections. The contrast therefor was believable to me.

[–] kevinmoorman-41971 8 years ago

I think the problem is it's a comedy, performed by non-comedians. One forgettable line was somebody who had some kind of backpack anxiety and was hassling Robert Redford to explain why he chose the X25-whatever model over the alternatives, and his ironic/devastating response, "so I don't have to carry my stuff in my arms". The entire scene was pathetic, but it sure showed Redford as hostile and self-absorbed - which I doubt was the intention.

I was put off by R rated content, I found it insulting.

[–] drnossal 8 years ago

No, that's pretty close to the intention. If you read the book, Bryson is exactly like that with virtually every person he encounters. I found it uncomfortable to read honestly, with the unrelenting nastiness of the man put to the page.

The film does a pretty good job of toning down those moments. But there are a few left in, the backpack comment and a few other one-liners. In a small dose, they can be funny, but the jokes would wear thin if that's all he had to say.

"You didn't come into this life just to sit around on a dugout bench, did ya?"

[–] hitking 8 years ago

Why was an actor close to 80 chosen to play a man 15 years younger?

Try more like 30-40 years younger.

[–] dan.adams 7 years ago

I dunno.Hasn't Redford got weird eyebrows!

[–] bobbobwhite 8 years ago

Check the producer list. Redford paid for the film, so he bought his part in it. I agree, he was flat and pretty lifeless in his role. Man, Nolte is old and worn out, but he did much better than Redford. He was always better.

[–] rogerhoughton-447-822093 8 years ago

Agree. Redford could at least have grown a beard. (And Bryson was 46 at the time of the walk.)

[–] ccc-123 7 years ago

I wanted to like this.

I imagined that with some calibre actors in the main parts and the source material it would be enjoyable.

But, sadly it was far from that. I laughed out loud three times. Other than that I think the description "boring and flat" is accurate. Sorry, Redford is way too old for this. Nolte was OK. Emma Thompson was OK, but had little to do.

The rock on which it all stumbles though is Redford. There was just nothing there.

Sad.

[–] ModernDayWarrior (114) 5 years ago

IMO the biggest issue was that Nolte and Redford just didn't have much chemistry together. Replace Redford with any other actor from their era and I see it going much better. He shoulda just directed it instead.

It has some boring parts but the filming's quite beautiful and the funny scenes due to Nolte makes it work.

[–] slimone (7996) 4 years ago

I agree! I wanted to see this because of Robert Redford, Nick Nolte, and Emma Thompson. what is the point of watching a film of two men hiking in the woods??? There wasn't really a plot. It was boring.

[–] SooBee (129) 4 years ago

Hikes don't really have plots though! But I agree, it was rendered tedious due to Redford's woodenness. He gave it no spark of life at all. Nick Nolte tried to give his part some life, as did Emma T. I never really thought RR was a great actor, relied too much on his good looks when he was younger.

The book is great and has much more life than this film. It's never explained in the film how those two lads rescue them from that ledge. I'll have to re-read the book to find out!