Solo Speaks: A One-On-One with Annie Clark

By: Addison Wylie

After being featured at Toronto After Dark, the indie Canadian thriller named Solo is making a more public appearance with a theatrical run at Toronto’s Carlton Cinema.

Carlton Cinema is a very appropriate venue seeing as the theatre and the film both share a level of independence.  Carlton Cinema is a quaint theatre that feels as if you step into another world of movie watching, and Solo’s lead is left in her own world to try surviving camp initiation.

Solo serves as a debut for writer/director Isaac Cravit, marking the flick as his first feature length film.  The spooky movie is also actress Annie Clark’s first foray into theatrical films.  It’s a big move for Clark who is often on screen by herself and having to support the eeriness Cravit has materialized.

I wasn’t too hot on Solo as a whole.  It started off strong, and progressively meandered its way into a final product that lacks punch or chills.  However, Clark does a commendable job at holding her own.  She turns in a promising performance that makes the audience eager to see what else she’ll do with her budding career.

Wylie Writes correspondant Sky Wylie sat down one-on-one with Clark to talk shop about Solo.  The two also discuss Clark’s departure from Degrassi: The Next Generation, how a real life camp experience inspired her hopes of becoming an actress, and whether she sees a future for Isaac Cravit directing tense fare.

Listen to the free-form interview here:

**********

Solo is now playing at Toronto’s Carlton Cinema. Click here for showtimes!

Read my review here!

Do You Tweet? Follow These Tweeple:

Solo: @SoloTheMovie
Annie Clark: @AnnieJClark
Sky Wylie: @SkyBaby5
Addison Wylie: @AddisonWylie

Solo

By: Addison Wylie

Solo starts out on an “A” game, but ends up finishing with a generous “C” grade.

Isaac Cravit’s independent thriller is a straight-up campfire story – and, the filmmaker knows it.  Gillian (played by former Degrassi: The Next Generation co-star Annie Clark) needs to prove herself to be a capable camp counsellor in order to obtain a summer job.  The newbie needs to pull a “solo”, a two-night experience on a secluded island that will test her survival skills.

Cravit, directing and writing his first feature film, is having a lot of fun playing with the conventions of a campfire horror.  The filmmaker even has fellow councillors telling Gillian rumours of haunted activity that took place on the island before she embarks on her trip.

These moments don’t feel like Cravit is pushing too hard for the audience to recognize what the film is trying to be and he sticks his landing well with these scenes of eerie dialogue.

When Gillian arrives at the island and is forced to investigate mysteries in the woods at night, Cravit nails the creepiness.  As the camera slowly moves around a freaked out Clark, we can’t help but get sweaty palms as we feel ourselves growing more anxious.  What’s better is that there aren’t too many of these moments, making these quiet pressure cookers enunciate strongly when they happen.

Cravit is also having a ball throwing red herrings at his audience, including possible antagonists that may have more to do with the island’s history than we realize.

Solo reveals more, including what’s overlooking Gillian.  The routes the film travels on is all a matter of subjectivity.  I watched Solo with my wife, who enjoyed where Cravit took his scary movie.  I, on the other hand, thought these decisions made the film less effectively stimulating and increasingly mundane.

Without spoiling the main course, Cravit’s screenplay makes the right choice to make delirium the main evil in Solo.  The problem is – for me, at least – he chooses the wrong type of crazy.  Solo would’ve been better off as something more psychological than being so literal.

Solo is typical enough to get by.  Some gory effects towards the end are appreciated and certainly help matters tonal wise.  But, part of the joy of watching these smaller scale horrors/thrillers is finding steady specialties that make movie goers gush to others about the film – resulting in consecutive views.  I just didn’t get that with Solo.

The Selfish Giant

By: Addison Wylie

The Selfish Giant gives off an aroma of a film that will be remembered for a very long time.  The staying power of its troubled characters as well as the painfully realistic portrayal of a down-and-out community in Northern England are quite remarkable.

This directorial feature debut from British director Clio Barnard trails the life of two young troublemakers trying to make sense of their early teens.  Both boys always yearn to help either their struggling family or friends.  The loudest of the duo Arbor (played by Conner Chapman) hates to see his pal Swifty picked on.  In fact, it’s Arbor’s adamant roughness that gets himself and Swifty (played by Shaun Thomas) suspended from school.

Swifty, who is only asked to leave for 10 days, is Arbor’s rock.  Rather than enabling Arbor’s rowdiness, he’s usually helping the foul-mouthed rebel soothe down after adults treat the twosome with brash language and constant discipline.

It’s stupefying how natural Chapman and Thomas are in front of the camera.  Each line and pause all feel habitually motivated.  A large portion of the film feels as if we’re infringing on their hang outs.

The youngsters also decline any chance to beg movie goers for sentimentality or easy reactions.  These are two actors who understand that the story and reacting to those subtle beats are essential parts to making this viscerally moving film succeed.  These are old souls who are showing rather quickly that they have the hang of acting.

Some – if not all – of The Selfish Giant is tough going to watch.  Whenever families are the prime focus, there’s always chaos.  There’s always a collection of disarray happening in small spaces with blue language being whipped around.  It all looks and feels just as invasive as watching the leading boys by themselves.

Barnard hasn’t overdone the purity within these moments, which is a great sign of what’s to come with her filmmaking career.  We don’t find too many details about the different adults other than hearing local gabbing on the school yard and seeing visual cues that give us just enough to draw conclusions.  These scenes come at full force one after another during the first act – undoubtably disarming.  But, once we are sucked into these stressful environments, it’s hard to veer our interests away from the candid calamities.

As we watch Arbor and Swifty slowly enter a working man’s world as they earn money for collecting scrap metal, the lack of a concrete narrative never feels like a problem.  Arbor and Swifty dig through heaps and keep their eyes open for available wires to steal and sell.  Those illegal activities are what drive the film forward, adding extra nervousness while elaborating onto and reinforcing Chapman and Thomas’ characters.  Observing how Swifty becomes more outgoing and how Arbor develops jealousy towards him is a forceful dynamic.

For Arbor, the scrapyard is just the life for him that fits his hyperactive interests.  Swifty, on the other hand, finds his calling when he’s allowed to tame and tend to the horses around the scrapyard.  In a lot of ways, this free pace around unique symbols resembles Cilo Barnard’s film to Harmony Korine’s audacious directorial debut, Gummo.  What separates the two films, however, is that The Selfish Giant has more of a filmmaker’s professionalism to it.  It also has more of a direct focus on portraying youthfulness and less inclinations to shock the audience.

When an earth-shattering climactic event drops, the audience feels the impact from every possible direction in a matter of seconds.  It’s hard to take in.  Mostly because we don’t want to accept that it’s real.  Barnard handles the consequences that carry out in all the correct ways.  Her direction, along with her screenplay, is instinctive with the audience’s perceptions.  Just as the actors have shown, this filmmaker has shown – yet again – how strong she is at her craft.

As the end of the first month of 2014 grows near, I feel happy to know the bar is being set high for phenomenal indies.  The Selfish Giant has me excited to tell people about this accomplished work, and has me eager to see what Clio Barnard, Conner Chapman, and Shaun Thomas will do next.

Does It Float?: Don Jon

Upon the invention of this series, I was hoping Does It Float? would successfully show how a movie can be conceived in different ways.  It doesn’t always have to be a positive experience turning into a negative one or vice versa, however.  Maybe a movie could still be a solid watch on separate occasions for different reasons.  Who would’ve guessed Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s feature length directorial debut Don Jon would be that film to prove this?

Don Jon was the first TIFF film I saw in a theatre when my festival coverage was kicking off; and, what a great movie to start the moviegoing.  I thought Don Jon was a sharp take on old fashioned Hollywood romance being set in a modern day social scene inspired by pop culture hits like MTV’s Jersey Shore.

Gordon-Levitt makes these lively environments into a watering hole for pining young men in search of an alluring one-night-stand.  The ambitious director/writer/actor doesn’t paint males or females in a way that’s discriminating, but rather gives the typical stereotype a persistent voice and mind.

My cringing reaction to Don Jon’s crassness is still in tact even moreso now.  I remember reading other reviews once mine went live, and the number of people who warned their readers about the vague clips from actual pornography was very high.  These cutaways didn’t bother me so much the first time around because I was too busy reacting to how blunt and graphic Jon describes sex.  But, on a second viewing, I had more of a realization as to how often these snippets would roll out at full force.

This leads me into my re-watch of Don Jon.  A lot of my original admirations and criticisms are still relevant, but because I was more aware of the film’s unique characteristics, I couldn’t help but feel the film taking on a more abrasive role with a more intimate home viewing experience.  However, Gordon-Levitt’s flick may have served me a new hand of cards, but I came up with results that surprised me.

Go on and watch the sixth webisode of Does It Float?.

Read my original capsule review here!

Do You Tweet? Follow Me:

@AddisonWylie

The Pervert’s Guide to Ideology

By: Addison Wylie

The conceptual idea of a philosopher (in this case, Slavoj Žižek) walking audiences through beloved and forgotten films and giving their outlook on the film’s ideological take has potential.  The documentary, however, has to have competent direction and a confident mind at the forefront in order for the project to work.  The Pervert’s Guide to Ideology has neither.

Sophie Fiennes’ doc is hitting home runs with most movie goers (it currently holds an impressive 90% on Rotten Tomatoe’s Tomatometer) and it’ll more than likely wet the whistle for those who caught Žižek and Fiennes prior collaboration The Pervert’s Guide to Cinema.

If you haven’t caught their predecessor, you can still take in The Pervert’s Guide to Ideology as a stand alone film.  To my understanding, the films only share Žižek’s appearance and Fiennes’ jumpy narrative.  That said, you may also finding yourself – as I was – using all your will to stay tuned in to this hyperactive headache-inducing collaboration of humdrum proportions.

Slavoj Žižek bumbles his way through theory after theory while Fiennes tries to keep up with all the transporting into different movies.  Žižek has been integrated nicely into movies like They Live, Taxi Driver, and A Clockwork Orange, but he speeds through explanations with slight confidence in his rambling.

It’s easy to see that this eccentric personality cares for what he’s talking about, but he always appears to look disheveled and anxious.  If he had papers in his hand, you bet he’d be shuffling through them constantly.  As a viewer, I need to know that the main speaker I should be believing in can have the ability to educate me.  I couldn’t take Slavoj Žižek seriously at all.  If that’s part of the joke, Fiennes hasn’t done a good enough of a job to emphasize that.

Watching The Pervert’s Guide to Ideology was really trying.  It was kind of like being trapped in an elevator with a distant, slightly inebriated uncle who has found out cinema is a fascination of mine.  In order for him to vent but also make a connection with me, he uses this newfound information to a supposed advantage.  Instead, the reactions I have are exhaustion and irritation and they get only worse over the two-hour runtime.

The Pervert’s Guide to Ideology is for a specific crowd.  Mainly those who are devoted followers of Žižek’s.  I’ll take this unpleasant experience as a sign that I’m not part of this audience.

If I Were You

By: Addison Wylie

It’s appropriate that If I Were You’s climax includes a theatrical production because Joan Carr-Wiggin’s film is a full-on farce that would play well on stage.

When I say “farce”, I mean a comedy of errors set at Defcon 4.  This is the type of film where someone ties a noose around their neck with full intentions to hang themselves, only to forget about the rope until they try and walk to somewhere else in the room.  You get my point?

If I Were You shouldn’t work for as long as it does.  Usually when a movie is acting out as being THIS broadly theatrical, the transition to the silver screen doesn’t hold up.  Fortunately for Carr-Wiggin, she has two skilled performers manning the leading roles.

Leonor Watling plays Lucy, a ditzy temptress who has lured a married man away from his wife.  Marcia Gay Harden plays Madelyn, the very cheated on tepid woman.  The catch is after an outrageous coincidence, Lucy and Madelyn have found themselves crossing paths.  Madelyn knows who Lucy is, but Lucy is oblivious to who Madelyn really is.

After more outrageousness, the two create a type of double act chemistry while agreeing to make the other person’s decisions.  Lucy can’t get enough of her new best friend, and Madelyn will do anything to separate her husband from this floozy.

After that brief rundown, let me repeat, this should not work.  Joan Carr-Wiggin’s film, however, is that exception that had me giggling with Lucy’s confusion and Harden’s deadpan readings.  Secrets are unknowingly leaked consistently changing the mood of a scene, but Carr-Wiggin always keeps the foolishness in mind.  There’s real emotion behind Harden’s covered up broken heart, but true silliness in how she presents her hidden identity from her new “friend”.

This premise is stretched as far as it can go – and then some.  Numerous situations would be solved in an instant if one of these characters were to drop everything and spill the beans, but then there wouldn’t be a movie.  It asks the viewer to leave common sense at the door, and watch a goofy snowball effect take place.  If you can go with the film’s logic, you’ll find yourself having as good of a time I was having for the first hour of If I Were You.

Even then though, Carr-Wiggin adds too many characters into the mix with results not faring as well as they did when the farce was merely involving three people.  As soon as other characters and their perceptions are piled on, you can feel the juggling routine fumble at grasping this gratuitous load.

But, that added difficulty is nothing compared to the abandonment Carr-Wiggin resorts to during the film’s manipulative tonal shift when seams start becoming more apparent in Madelyn’s story.

It starts with a flubbed handling of a death, and dwindles down from there.  The farcical elements are replaced by contrived devices to bring the film down to a monotone plain.  It’s gutsiness is paved over to make room for a by-the-numbers romance that brings in an attractive but unpersonable love interest, lifeless blow-ups, and a big underdog showstopper that will bring together those who hate each other.

It’s just as perplexing to see If I Were You trip up as it was to see it soar.  I’m still confused as to how or why Joan Carr-Wiggin found herself on a drab path when she was doing everything intelligently before she took a wrong turn at Albuquerque.  It’s an important lesson for any aspiring filmmakers to see that even though you may have the right ingredients, your final dish still has the possibility of going sour.

On The Film Army Front: June ’13 Edition

For those who may be unaware, I also write on a more Canadian-savvy site called Film Army. At Film Army, contributors wish to bring filmmakers – ranging from students to up-and-comers to tenured artists – together and provide resources, news, and other relevant information in order to keep these dedicated readers in the loop regarding the film and television industry.

Contributors have some sort of tv/film experience under our belts. Some have been working behind-the-scenes on a number of sets while others are currently in school for their specified craft or choosing if film school would be the best bet for their budding careers.

As for myself, I have an education in television and video production, but found I had a lot more fun and more of a fuelled passion to write about what I love about movies and what I think other movie goers would appreciate about modern movies. Which is why I’m Film Army’s resident film critic.

I’ve been writing for Film Army for three years. I’ve reviewed feature-length movies and short films, interviewed filmmakers, provided event coverage, been a guest on Base Camp (Film Army’s exclusive podcast), and have had a ball gaining experience and watching a collection of different works.

At the beginning of every month (excluding this late entry), I’m going to provide Film Army links to my Wylie Writes readers. Just like Film Army keeps industry folk involved with television and film, I want to keep you guys in the loop with my other work.

FILM ARMY GOES CUCKOO FOR 360 SCREENINGS’ FIFTH EVENT

JOHNNY LAROCQUE’S FILM FESTIVAL HAS LEFT A MOVIEGOING IMPRINT

PLACEBO WEAVES THROUGH MOVIEGOERS

SCI-FI SIMU: ONE-ON-ONE WITH OMEGA’S SIMU LIU

MOVIEGOING HALFTIME: THE BEST AND WORST OF 2013… SO FAR

SHIPSHAPE SHORTS AT TORONTO YOUTH SHORTS FILM FESTIVAL

PELLETIER’S PRESENT FUTURE: ONE-ON-ONE WITH OMEGA’S JARED PELLETIER

CANADIAN COHEN: ONE-ON-ONE WITH BEING CANADIAN’S ROBERT COHEN

Let’s close out this first ‘On The Film Army Front’ with a pretty cool milestone. Earlier this year, I reviewed an inspiring documentary called Fame High, directed by Academy Award nominee Scott Hamilton Kennedy. It played at this year’s TIFF Kids as well as TIFF Next Wave Film Festival.

The film ended up using one of my quotes for their web poster. I’m the third quote – just above the title. Check it out! And, read my review here!

**********

Visit FilmArmy.ca!

Do You Tweet? Follow Us:

Film Army: @FilmArmy
Addison Wylie: @AddisonWylie

Hot Docs 2013: Alias Chokes at the Mic

By: Addison Wylie

Alias made me frustrated.  Watching Michelle Latimer’s documentary provoked me in a way that pushed me to talk back to the screen – something I rarely do.

Alias focuses on a small handful of Toronto rappers trying to be heard and to please an audience with their music and lyrics.  According to the synopsis, Latimer’s doc “digs deeper than the usual portrait of the rap world as glamour, guns and swagger.”  I appreciate Latimer wanting to show an authentic reality of the underground rap world, but by not offering any answers or anything to say about the topic she wants to tackle, she fails to make the film any better than if it focused merely on shiny rims and gold chains.

Alias is one if these “fly-on-the-wall” approaches to the documentary genre and it doesn’t benefit the filmmaker or the subjects.  It takes on a loose structure as we follow these rap artists around Toronto.  The problem is they don’t have anything substantial to say or do in Latimer’s doc other than to remind the viewers that violence is a recurring theme and that the rap game isn’t all that it’s cracked out to be – even though they are passionate about their craft.

The film shows a lot of unfairness that a rapper faces when trying to be seen and heard. The first third of Alias demonstrates that even if you’re on a list to perform for an audience, you can be easily bumped or erased from the list if the main person keeping track of time (in this case, an organizer nicknamed Mr. Know-It-All ) lets the show go over the venue’s limit.

A collection of bummed out musicians complain that they’ve anticipated the night and that they’ve managed their time around this would-be performance, including one rapper calling in a babysitter to take care of their kid for the night.  Mr. Know-It-All ends up spending more money on security than he expects, stating that he has to use his daughter’s OSAP to cover the costs.

I’m sitting in my seat, watching the doc, and wondering why these determined goal chasers are sticking to the same ole’ if there are so many possible cons?  Some of the interviews explain that less opportunities arise in the more urban areas of Toronto, but with the expansion of the Internet as well as other venues around this very busy city, there are other options for these artists to take into consideration.

However, they stick faithfully to the “thug life” mentality even if they realize why thinking “outside the box” could benefit their careers.  If this is a message Latimer wanted to display to an audience, I suppose she’s done it successfully, but it’s disheartening after the umpteenth “this is what happens when you live a thug life” is uttered.

Because of the stubbornness and the lack of energy on either side of the camera, these artists aren’t exactly interesting to watch either.  Latimer appears to have not manipulated their image for the film and the featured rappers are comfortable with being honest either during their narration or in front of the camera.  That said, the truth is belittled by non-stop tough, gangster machismos that suggest these artists are also putting on a front – as if they have to perform for Latimer as they do on stage or in homegrown music videos.  For those who have seen Harmony Korine’s Spring Breakers, imagine James Franco’s Alien character without the irony or the satire.

With nothing to say or do, Alias uselessly sits there on the screen and waits for its duration to time out – that is, until the final few moments.  Moviegoers have a final word with each featured artist as they tell us what they find so thrilling and satisfying about performing.  The phoney bologna soft instrumental music that has played earlier during montages finds a place to fit as it matches the ease these musicians have as they rap.  If the rest of the documentary followed in these footsteps, Michelle Latimer could’ve had something uplifting and inspirational on her hands.

Sadly, the credits suddenly roll as we’re being escorted out of the movie – being told that the documentary has gone over the venue’s limit and can’t perform the rest of its set.

**********

Catch Alias at:

Friday, April 26 at 7:00 p.m. at The Royal Cinema

Sunday, April 28 at 1 p.m. at Scotiabank Theatre

Saturday, May 4 at 8:45 p.m. at Scotiabank Theatre

Click here for more details and to buy tickets.

Visit the official Hot Docs webpage here!

Do You Tweet? Follow These Tweeple:

Hot Docs: @HotDocs
Film Army: @FilmArmy
Addison Wylie: @AddisonWylie

Keyhole

By: Addison Wylie

I remember starring in a high school play, a play that shall remain nameless, where I didn’t know what was going on. Not in a way that I was passed out and my body was strung up resembling a Weekend at Bernie’s scenario;  I legitimately did not know what the play was about, my character’s motivation, or what it all meant in the grand scheme of things.

Being that the play was rather difficult to comprehend and our opening day was fast approaching, I stayed quiet and experimented with how long I could go with this theatrical poker face. Maybe not the best idea looking back at it, but given the nature of the play, I can see why I decided this.

The story concludes with the play’s run ending and me receiving lots of pats on the back and a lot of special recognition. Some said it was one of the best performances they’d ever seen out of me. I didn’t know whether this was good or bad.

I reminisce not for my own purposes but, I was reminded of this while watching Guy Maddin’s Keyhole, a mysterious and intangible attempt to mix a crime film in with a supernatural ghost story.

Maddin is a director whom actors must enlist all of their trust into. His story may not be easy to grasp at first and his imagery may seem outrageous but,  if you’re playing a role in Maddin’s work, you have to trust the backroads he is taking because he is almost always certain where he wants his film to end up.

I’ve seen Maddin’s The Saddest Music in the World and My Winnipeg, both are dreamy films I enjoy immensely though they may not be the easiest recommendations. I’ve seen Maddin take a group of actors and direct them phenomenally and those players have been able to be as passionate as Maddin is about his material.

With Keyhole, there’s a minor slip leading to a disconnection. I want to believe it’s in the acting.

Some of the actors “get” the story and understand their character. It also helps that these particular people have been in the acting game for quite some time and understand how to approach this script written by Maddin and George Toles.

The two actors who are the strongest are Jason Patric (as the deadbeat father Ulysses Pick) and Udo Kier (as the morose Dr. Lemke). Both comprehend the inner workings to their characters and are able to deliver each line with gusto and heart. Patric has more lines that tightrope walk between sounding legit and being too snappy but it’s his terrific acting that sells us on these short monologues.

Some actors aren’t like Patric and Kier and put on that aforementioned poker face; hinting that their performances are running on pure confidence.

David Wontner (who plays Manners, a young abductee) and a number of Ulysses’ henchmen reminded me of myself in that unnamed play. Their performances are very personality heavy and show that each actor is very passionate about giving his/her best. However, in the final scenes where everything is wrapping up, those seams in the acting start to show.

Then, there are those who are clueless; and, I’m looking at you Kevin McDonald (Kids in the Hall).

Judging by his portrayal of Ogilbe, I’m convinced McDonald has no idea what the meaning behind it all is. He’s unsure if his slightly paranoid character is supposed to be played straight or be handled in a more kookie manner. The result is a severely mixed bag and it feels like McDonald is treating this as just another sketch he would star in with other Kids in the Hall players.

The audience spends so much time focusing on whether the actors understand the film or not that we end up forgetting we’re watching a movie.

To give the actors a break though, this disconnect could also be pointed to how outlandish the material is in the first place. Toles and Maddin’s script teases movie goers for a long time which is appreciative but their material mustn’t tease their actors who will be retelling the story. The actors must be kept in the loop..

The disconnection finger can be pointed at any of these cinematic attributes. Maddin himself could even take some more blame being the director. Maybe the clash of a crime story and a ghostly tale was too much of an endeavour to have it make sense to a point where even he is having trouble understanding his own material.

To give the film its rightful merits though, the film’s black-and-white “old thyme” visuals work favourably (thanks to cinematographer Benjamin Kasulke) and John Gurdebeke’s editing is impressive as well; both elements incorporating flashes of chaos during those scenes of heightened lunacy.

Their work is so memorable that it may be proof that those two men (along with Patric and Kier) may be the only ones who genuinely know what’s going on in Keyhole.

Hick

By: Addison Wylie

Derick Martini’s Hick reminded me of Deborah Kampmeier’s 2007 indie film Hounddog. Both with it’s Southern setting and the state’s troubled habitants but also because both films took innocent, young actresses and positioned them in harsh adult themes.

Hounddog was all the hubbub because of a certain scene involving Dakota Fanning’s Lewellen being sexually assaulted. It easily made people aware of the film because we could never picture the delightful actress from I am Sam in such a brutal role.

If it weren’t for the role of Hit-Girl in 2010’s Kick Ass, Hick may have been that film for actress Chloë Grace Moretz.

Hounddog failed because of its slathering of melodrama and the bogus emotion behind it. Is Hick a better film than Hounddog? Yes, but not by much because of those same faults. It isn’t worthy of a recommendation either.

Moretz plays Luli McMullen. Growing up in a small Southern town with unkempt parents, Luli longs for caring company. Not necessarily a boyfriend or a new family, but just someone who has their head on straight.

Luli hits the road soon after her 13th birthday in search of a getaway and to find those desirable conversationalists. On her trip, she meets an array of different characters including a mysterious con-woman named Glenda (played by Blake Lively) and a cowboy with a limp and a short temper named Eddie (played by Eddie Redmayne).

The film has been adapted from Andrea Portes’ novel of the same name, to which she also wrote the film’s screenplay. Based on that knowledge  we can expect what we’re seeing on screen is most likely faithful to the source material. However, I would love to know if the characters Luli meets in the book have been written as overly dramatic and fickle as the characters in Martini’s film.

Portes wants to illustrate how not everyone seems to be who they are at first. A kind gesture may not always reflect that particular person’s personality.

A perfect example would be when Luli first meets Eddie. The two start to warm up to one another but when Luli calls Eddie a “gimp”, Eddie becomes very stern.

Even if Redmayne takes things a little too serious during these moments, it’s understandable as to why a character with a limp would react this way.

However, the audience is tricked. There are more scenes where Eddie is interested in what Luli has to say and wants to commit to a friendship. But, before you can say “y’all”, Eddie is lashing out and putting Luli in dangerous situations to save his hide.

The problem doesn’t lay with Portes wanting to shine a light on flawed personalities but with how Portes has written this character in an inconsistent way and how Martini has directed Redmayne. An audience likes to be pulled back and forth leaving it up to us to make our own decisions, but the struggle to either make Eddie a redeeming character or a reprehensible one goes on for far too long resulting in a botched arc to his character.

Portes’ script loves to show glimmers of hope only to yank the carpet from underneath the audience and throw them back into a frustrating world of misconduct. Rory Culkin appears in a throwaway role as a genuine nerdy guy who likes to play a silly and random card game. We see Moretz with a sweet smile plastered on her face when she plays cards with him. It’s a lovely change of pace since we’ve seen Luli be tugged around by annoying characters.

However, that ruse is up and Eddie enters the scene to remove Luli away from Culkin and we never see Culkin again.

The performances, other than Moretz trying to keep this film afloat, are nothing to write home about. Each actor feels the need to layer on a thick Southern accent, making them seem like they’re making fun of the speech rather than actually becoming a Southerner.

The one odd performance that I fall directly in the middle of is Lively’s portrayal of Glenda. Again, it’s another aggravatingly flawed character where the audience can never decide on whether we’re on board with her antics or not.

But, Lively is able to become that character and prove she has acting chops and not just a pretty face. The character she’s portraying is an unpleasant on, but with it she promises audiences that she has “the goods” , and, hopefully, we’ll be seeing more of this serious side of Lively in future projects.

I would’ve loved to root for a companion that could follow alongside Luli but Hick never offers this. Portes and Martini are more interested in tricking the audience ten too many times and we can’t help but feel fed up after a while.

The characters may not be definable but after watching Hick, I was able to define two things about the film:

The first being that Mortez has that power to support her own performance and could most certainly hold her own next to esteemed actors (Juliette Lewis and Alec Baldwin appear briefly and play flaky roles).

The second point being that I really, really, really didn’t like Hick.