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.
