Hick

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.