Hick

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.

This movie wasn't that great, but I think it was better than most of the reviews would suggest. I like films that meander, though. The main character is kind of smart and kind of stupid and has no idea what she's doing. I think that's pretty realistic for a 13 year old runaway. They're not always going to do things that make sense.

I thought the acting was pretty good. I like how it was shot. I like the time period and thought they did a pretty good job depicting rural America in the 80s. How it looked, how it felt. It's little things like the radio that was from the 70s or maybe even the 60s. In lots of period films they stuff the whole thing full of objects from the 80s, but that's not how people live. Particular poor people will have some older stuff around. There were some nice details like that.

I would probably give this about a 5.5, but since that's not available, I'll be nice and say 6. Chloe Moretz is what primarily drove me to see this film at first, especially since I wasn't too familiar with or cared for any of the actors who were to be in it. I might be a bit biased because prior to my viewing, all I'd heard was how AWFUL this film was. But I said screw it, it's Chloe Moretz. I've been on a Chloe binge lately and thought I'd help satisfy it by catching this. A month before its May 11th release, I read the book and was legitimately impressed. The book truly captivates the reader, by giving you a sincere sense of what goes on in Luli's mind, given her experiences with a troubled family and redneck life. Having truly enjoyed the book, I was able to ignore the horrid reviews I'd read and decided I'd go for it anyway.

I'll say this: if it weren't for Chloe Moretz and Eddie Redmayne, this film would truly have been a flop. The script is a bit similar to the book, as pertaining to the volatility of the plot and random introduction of significant characters. But the script fails by giving most of these spontaneously interjected characters ridiculously short screen time (Blake Lively only had about MAYBE 15-20 min. tops?). Characters that had given reasonably substantial meaning to Luli's depicted life on the road, such as Clement, Beau, even Lloyd, had no more than 2-3 minutes screen time apiece, and many of them were given almost no depth whatsoever.

Chloe did a fantastic job of acting, as usual. Her portrayal of a charming, street-smart yet semi-innocent teenage girl is visually and emotionally gripping. Her camera action and dialogue alike are the culmination of what only the most talented, versatile young actress in Hollywood can produce. Blake Lively did a reasonably decent job, and actually showed a surprising amount of character depth. But it is Mr. Redmayne who steals the show.

Having never seen a film with Eddie Redmayne before, I can't say that I had really known what to expect from him. I had read from many sources that he had done a fabulous job in this film, with one such reviewer even claiming he deserved an Oscar nod. Having read the book and been well-acquainted with what to expect from the man playing Eddie Kreezer, the acquaintance-turned-murderer-turned-kidnapper, I was thoroughly and legitimately impressed with his depth. Eddie Redmayne brought a perfect combination of charm and emotional versatility, with the underlying degree of insanity which would turn extreme in the final act of the film. Redmayne's western accent was phenomenal, given his English citizenship, and his charming cowboy persona was spot-on. His mood in scenes would vary from condescending to charming to menacing and so on. I can honestly say that Eddie Redmayne literally made the show for me.

The film as a whole will probably not be up for any (significant) awards, especially given its indie status and almost obsolete promotion. I can't recommend that the average moviegoer check out this film, maybe not even the average Chloe Moretz fan. But if you're up for a road film centered on a young girl who learns to literally pull herself up by her bootstraps and survive countless things, from abandonment to rape to kidnapping and so on, it could be worth your time.

It's 80's Nebraska. Luli McMullen (Chloë Grace Moretz) turns 13 and one of her gifts is a gun. Her mother (Juliette Lewis) takes off with a guy. Luli decides to runaway to Las Vegas. She hitches a ride with rodeo cowboy Eddie (Eddie Redmayne) with a limp. He kicks her out after calling him a gimp. She gets picked up by Glenda (Blake Lively).

Moretz is young doing this sexual character. There is a fun quirky sense that is somewhat irksome. It wouldn't be quite as bad if it does this in a gritty ugly way. Moretz doing Dirty Harry is too playful. Redmayne mumbles a lot. Lively does surprisingly reasonable. The story is a muddle. There are ways to make more sense and make it easier. It may need somebody other than Andrea Portes to adapt her book. The big three leads are ready for their stardom. This is a minor detour.

"You could shake your knuckles at the sky, you could get mad and say I don't got nothing', you could get stuck." Thirteen year old Luli (Moretz) comes from a very messed up family. She spends the night of her 13th birthday at a bar with her parents and when the dad is too drunk to drive home a big fight occurs. When her mother leaves with an insurance man and her dad gets mad and leaves she is left alone. Deciding she needs a fresh start she heads out on her own for Las Vegas. The best way to describe this movie really is to compare it to the movie "Jolene" that came out a few years ago. But I'm guessing most people didn't see it so I will do my best. It sounds strange to say this but this is a coming of age story about a 13 year old girl. Through the people she meets on her way she has new life experiences that involves things she shouldn't learn about for at least 5 more years. Moretz is amazing in this and I just wonder how long it will take until she wins an Oscar. The cast in this is also very good and the movie is very much worth watching all the way to the surprising and bittersweet ending. I liked it. Overall, a very good movie about a not so typical life of a 13 year old. I give it a B.