Hick

The excellent Chloe Grace Moretz plays Luli, a Nebraska teen who decides to head to the bright lights of Las Vegas leaving behind her drunk of a father and a mother who has run off with another man, sadly things don't go to plan when she hitches a ride with Glenda (Blake Lively)

The story and performances are all very good, but yet again the stand out is Chloe, her performances in this and other films such as Kick Ass and Let Me In are astonishing for such a young actress (she's barely 15 now!)The movie is gritty as Luli is exposed to the dark under belly of life, drugs, drunks, low life's out to use (and abuse) her.Chloe is well supported by a good cast, Juliette Lewis, Blake Lively and a cameo from Alec Baldwin and I was astonished at the films poor rating on Rotten Tomatoes of 5% fresh, critics eh!?

A mature adult drama well worth a look.

This movie has unfortunately earned the negative reviews it has seen since it's release. I haven't read the source material, but I can guarantee this is one of those instances of it being better than the adaptation. This is not the fault of the actors. Chloe Grace-Moretz makes this film tolerable, which is impressive given her age at the time of filming. She is quite likeable in everything I've seen her in, this is no exception.

The rest of the cast suffers from a bad script and bad casting. Blake Lively seems like a major character in this film, until she disappears for a long period of time completely destroying any momentum her character had in the story. Eddie Redmayne is a capable actor, but I just don't buy him as this manipulative, dangerous, and unstable cowboy. Alec Baldwin appears out of nowhere in the last ten minutes, I get the feeling that his character Beau should have been a bigger part of the story.

The biggest problems with this movie is that the script meanders and the pacing is awful. This is one of those movies where you get forty-five minutes into it, and still aren't sure what it's even about. The movie then races to its conclusion in the final twenty minutes. What did any of the characters learn? How did they grow as people? It is unclear by the end as to how the events of the movie shaped and impacted our main character, making this a complete waste of time and a forgettable boring slog that I will surely forget immediately after completing this review.

The acting was good but the plot was very depressing. This was sad.

But and there is a big BUT here, it is a far inferior story than Martini's "Lymelife", which I have also recently seen. Lymelife drove me to this movie with very high expectations. Maybe too high? It actually pained me to watch the flaws in Hick directly after viewing "Lymelife". I do not regret discovering this director's work and I do not regret seeing "Hick". I just felt like the (for lack of a better word) "scenarios" in "Hick" were wildly far- fetched. Like "Lymelife", Martini pulls magnificent performances from all of his cast. Juliette Lewis for instance is stuck playing a role that is so not even close to the reality of what a bad mother is but Martini plays to her strengths and. like the rest of the cast, creates more enigmatic characters, which feels like a director straining to "sell" characters that don't work. It's a noble effort, and it shockingly succeeds in most cases. Take Chloe Moretz as Luli. It's her story. The director makes it very clear that it is hers and only hers so you are forced to see other people how she sees them. Which is ambiguous. That's where it works best. Where it fails is when you understand all too clearly who these people are supposed to be as written. Simply, they are poorly written and when push comes to shove, there's only so much a director, cinematographer and great soundtrack can do to save the day. Again, Hick is not without merits, and it is strikingly emotional and beautifully done at times. Especially the work of Eddie and Luli and Glenda. Martini has a gift with actors, but he has to recognize that without the proper writing, he cannot win. I was not shocked to see that this was not his material, but that doesn't get him a "pass". As shown in "Lymelife", he is a writer comparable to a young Kenneth Lonergan and to me that makes the end result of this movie even more unacceptable. I except much better.

I first have to say that I have no problems with the performances; everyone did a great job in that department. Throughout the film Luli is drawing in a sketch book as she narrates and I really liked the simplicity of the drawings. No, what let it down (IMO) was a poorly put together script. They say it's a bad idea to let the writer of a novel attempt the screenplay and I suspect this is a case in point. It probably works very well as a book, but it really didn't work on the screen in this form. I like the actors fine but I found little to like in the characters. Our main focus, Luli, has very few redeeming features; she was a victim of circumstance all the way through and I found it quite frustrating to watch I'm afraid. Sadly not one I can recommend.

SteelMonster's verdict: NOT RECOMMENDED

My score: 4.9/10

You can find an expanded version of this review on my blog: Thoughts of a SteelMonster.