Click to Skip Ad
Closing in...

Poster & New Pics Of Blake Lively, Chloe Moretz & Eddie Redmayne In 'Hick'

by Kevin Jagernauth
March 29, 2012 6:40 PM
  • |
Eddie Redmayne Hick

While reviews out of TIFF weren't great -- we called it "a black blot of shame for everyone who had a part in its making" -- "Hick" still remains a curiosity because it offers up a grittier side we've rarely seen from the cast led by Blake Lively, Chloe Moretz and Eddie Redmayne.

Directed by Derick Martini (”Lymelife”), the film is an adaptation of Andrea Portes’ coming-of-age novel of the same name (she penned the script as well). The story revolves around Luli (Moretz), a 13-year-old Nebraskan girl, and her hard-going life on the road after she runs away from her neglectful parents and home. She’s taken in by Glenda (Lively), a hard-living grifter who takes Luli under her wing. With the movie's release on the horizon, a new poster and a few new images have arrived, serving up another look at the film that seems both glamorous and trashy.

"Hick" will go UltraVOD on May 8th before rolling into theaters on May 11th. Check out the pics and poster below. [Facebook]

Hick Blake Lively Chloe Moretz skip crop
Hick Chloe Moretz Blake Lively skip crop
Hick Poster
  • |

More: Hick

Free Indie Movies and Documentaries    


  • Hatch | April 2, 2012 11:12 AMReply

    Kangaroo is fixated on this movie, like a stalker. Someone earlier said he was probably fired off of it and has a vendetta. I think that may be the case. Weirdo.

    I saw this. It's pretty good. It's not The Godfather. But it's twisted and cool. I give it 2 and 1/2 stars out of 3

  • CHILLYCON | April 1, 2012 4:18 PMReply

    KANGAROO, there is something wrong with you. Why are you so obsessed? You sound like a jilted lover.

  • chillycon | April 1, 2012 4:16 PMReply

    Haha! Don't worry, THE REASON, I'm pretty sure that gun goes off from everything I've heard. How hilarious if they just put it on the poster for no reason.

  • THE REASON | April 1, 2012 11:58 AMReply

    Kangaroo is all over this board is because he or she has a very large bone to pick with someone involved in this movie Hick. Why else would Kangaroo care if the thing sucked or was brilliant to the insane extent he or she has gone to to prove that it sucks?

    The movie is coming out. People will see it. Or they won't. They'll like it or they won't. Who give a rat's ass?

    And isn't this supposed to be about the poster anyway?

    If I'm grading the poster I'd say it's catchy enough. Between the colors and the 2 girls, one pointing a revolver.

    I will say this about the poster: If someone doesn't shoot someone in this film I will be super pissed. It will be false advertising.

  • Kangaroo | April 2, 2012 12:23 AM

    Well clearly you give "a rat's ass" if you left a 2 comments specifically for me and considering I read/comment on this site regularly about good and bad films, my involvement on this specific thread isn't out of the ordinary. I don't have a bone to pick with anyone involved in the film- that's quite an ASSumption to make there, bud. As I noted below- it's very very very possible (and in this case, absolutely correct) that a person may dislike a film just because it's bad. It has nothing to do with being a "jilted lover" as ChillyCon so ignorantly suggests. I'm baffled that some of you can't accept that people dislike films based solely on the quality of a film- not personal vendettas.

  • nicky | March 31, 2012 9:09 PMReply

    Ya'll are smoking the glass pipe. This film is rad. If you don't like it, go watch mirror, mirror.

  • jillian | March 31, 2012 5:14 PMReply

    THEO and CHINAGIRL: There's no way they could get a cast like that with a shitty script. No way. Their agents wouldn't let them do it. It's an indy film, a labor of love. An action movie, yes. An indy film with zero money. Not a chance. Sounds to me like some people like it and some people hate it. I will see it just for that.

  • Kangaroo | March 31, 2012 11:39 PM

    Actors signing on for a project that doesn't have a great script... that NEVER happens in Hollywood. Never ever ever!! Excuse me while I roll my eyes.

  • chinagirl | March 30, 2012 9:12 PMReply

    THEO: The answer is that the script does not suck. I read that script for my boss a year ago and he was salivating to direct it. He lost out. Too bad.

  • The Reason | April 1, 2012 12:07 PM

    Kangaroo, you annoy me. Yes, actors sign on for scripts that aren't good. It happens all the time. But so what? Why are you so bent on ragging on this film? I haven't seen it, but I will because of the poster and I like the cast. If it's bad, so what? If it's good, so what? You are really coming off as a bitter sour grapes type of person here. Especially because there are multiple accounts from people who seem to like it, semi-like it, were disappointed by it, etc. But your insistence is very fishy. I'd quit writing your junk now.

  • theo | March 30, 2012 8:53 PMReply

    How can the acting be so fantastic if the script is bad? That makes no sense. What, are they just miming?

  • theo | March 31, 2012 4:53 PM

    PADRE - I know that there are people who think that. But I, also, know people who saw it, mostly girls, who loved it and said they were crying at the end. So, maybe some people, like you, do think it's just plain "bad"... but some people obviously were really upset or moved by it. I think you have to respect those people's opinions, too. Not all of those people, at least not my friends, have anything to do with the film. People have different opinions on things. That's a good thing. I would hate to live in a world where we all agreed on everything.

  • Padre | March 30, 2012 9:58 PM

    It makes perfect sense but in this case, the acting is ok not fantastic. I have a sneaking suspicion that many of the people who are raving about this film on this page are involved with the film/filmmaker/writer/etc to some degree. It's not a polarizing film- it's flat out bad.

  • lovely | March 30, 2012 4:34 PMReply

    I want to marry Eddie Redmayne or have a baby with him.

  • marybuggin | April 1, 2012 4:21 PM

    Me first!! Me first!!! I am super in love with him, too. No matter what all these haters are saying all up in here, I heard he's awesome in this.

  • whipit | March 30, 2012 4:13 PMReply

    This is to "HONEST NOTE". Hello cray cray!! Whoever you are, you know a little too much to just be some guy on the sidelines. Have fun never fulfilling your dreams!!!!

  • eldevil | March 30, 2012 4:07 PMReply

    You guys are high. That book is rad. We read it in our comp lit class and everyone went crazy over it. I can't wait to see this. The only thing that makes me nervous is that it's not as good as the book.

    Chloe I will wait for you!

  • Kelly | March 30, 2012 4:04 PMReply

    HAHA! You blew it, KANGAROO, it's super obvious you have a personal vendetta here. Why else would you know all this stuff? Go drink a beer and get over it, loser.

  • Caption Kangaroo | March 30, 2012 2:45 PMReply

    I don't own multimillion dollar estates in New York. It's nothing personal w/ the director. Why would I be jealous... this movie is being called Hounddog... if i made a movie it wouldn't try to attract that type of attention. Infact this damage control is just really pathetic.

    As for all of you... I'm guessing you just worked on the film and like the director. Or are the publicity team trying to cover up TIFF being dissapointing. Why don't you guys suck it up and say this film won't get good reviews and hope he makes a film that is better than Lymelife.

  • Buhelr | March 30, 2012 11:46 PM

    Caption Kangaroo: no, clearly you do not own multimillion dollar estates in New York city. But I bet you wish you did. And I have no idea what that has to do with this movie! If the director is wealthy beyond the independent or studio film world, who cares? Why even bring it up?

    I have no opinion on the film and haven't seen it. But I have been following this Kangaroo weirdo who definitely seems to have a vendetta against the movie or the director.


  • AndreaFriend | March 30, 2012 10:34 AMReply

    CAPTAIN KANGAROO I KNOW the author of the book and screenplay. You IDIOT. The movie starts in Nebraska. Moretz starts hitchhiking. She's picked up by a "drifter" (Redmayne) who has freakin' TEXAS license plates and talks about how he worked in a RODEO! Then, Lively hooks up w/Moretz and talks about coming from MEMPHIS. You are an IDIOT (I must say again) and it seems a little jealous of the director and his finances. And I don't think Martini acts any which way about money. He's directed 2 lower budget films and you never hear him talk about what a struggle it is. Grow up you jealous baby.

    Also, note that the accents were thoroughly researched. Chloe comes from Nebraska = neutral accent. Eddie comes from Texas = his Texan drawl. Blake is more unclear, but she mentions coming from the south = the southern drawl.

  • jingmei | March 30, 2012 2:29 AMReply

    Why this one got so many comments here, about Blake Lively? Kinda superficial. Pay more a lot attention to the fabulous Juliette Lewis in it, she played the alter mom just rocks.

  • Caption Kangaroo | March 30, 2012 1:52 AMReply

    Kangarooo - It appears that Martini's publicist or friends are writing most of these trying to create buzz. Obviously 41 comments is a high point for a PL article...and this one talks about a film that is no where on people's radar. They troll harder than Ron Paul fans.

    The people who walked out of the TIFF screening were critics and some casual fans. Infact off a google search of Tumblr reviews i found 16 people who said they wanted to walk out 1/2 way through. Matt Goldberg (Collider) even knows who they are. Martini comes from the greater New York area and from a ton of money (even though he loves to act indie and poor his family is pure 1%).... it felt to me that he had never cared to look into researching the Midwest (or watch an Alexander Payne film) before realizing that they don't talk with Southern accents.

  • Kangaroo | March 31, 2012 11:44 PM

    Moretz is on the rise... Lively is as over-hyped as they get but fortunately her lack of talent (or I should say- extraordinary mumbling skills) is keeping her FAR FAR away from the likes of Nolan, Cuaron, and Lurhmann. But don't tell her PR team that.

  • biggy | March 31, 2012 4:57 PM

    I agree with HIPPY. This is a high profile project, because of the cast. Blake Lively and Chloe Moretz are both big stars on the rise. I, also, think it's weird that anyone is bringing up the director's finances. Who cares? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? I don't know much about this film, but now I am curious to see it. Although I doubt they'll play it in Torrance. Bummer.

  • Kangaroo | March 30, 2012 10:07 PM

    Also, why you gotta steal my name?

  • KANGAROO | March 30, 2012 10:01 PM

    Hi Caption Kangaroo! Thanks for the info... it's quite obvious that most of the positive remarks on this page are coming from the same 2-3 people. I would probably do the same if I was involved in a film this lackluster. You gotta hustle to make it.

  • Sadie | March 30, 2012 11:57 AM

    Caption Kangaroo how do you know so much about the director's life and finances? To me, you reek of someone who has a bone to pick with him personally. Shame on you.

  • Hippy | March 30, 2012 11:09 AM

    Matt Goldberg is not a credible reviewer. And I doubt the filmmaker of Hick has anything to do with these responses. Everything Blake Lively does, when she walks her dog, or fixes her hair, it winds up attracting legions of people writing in. This is the premiere of the poster for her new film. People are interested. Can't it just be that simple?

  • JakeG | March 30, 2012 10:25 AM

    Ooohhhh. Getting personal with the director. I love it!

  • bNasty | March 30, 2012 12:13 AMReply

    I read Colin Ferell was in this. Eddie Redmayne is a MUCH better choice. Thank god.

  • Leftyfilm | March 30, 2012 12:11 AMReply

    And so it begins. The release of one of my most anticipated films of 2012. With a poster that looks straight out of a 1970's exploitation film. And no trailer. I can't wait to see that trailer. Any idea when?

  • Kyle | March 30, 2012 12:08 AMReply

    Decent poster. Sounds like an incredibly dark movie.

  • Tara | March 30, 2012 12:00 AMReply

    The movie is uneven and it is the performances that keep it going. But I felt that it was intentionally uneven because you are seeing the story through Chloe Moretz's innocent perspective. Sometimes she's confused regarding what the characters around her are getting at. I felt like that was smart and it made me feel like I was her, going through these very emotional twists and turns. It's harsh, but effective. Also, great music too.

  • DollyGrip | March 29, 2012 11:57 PMReply

    I worked on HICK. Everyone, including the cast and director, knew that this was a very rough script. But the way Martini works, he just keeps pushing the actors in very clever ways to get more surprise and emotion out of the takes. He's so fast, it's hard to keep up with. Everything is organized and focused. I don't think anyone involved in this movie are surpassed that some people love it and others hate it. But I will say that I am on another movie now and I really miss working with a great director who quickly gets everyone headed in the right direction. It makes for a very fulfilling job. I hope to work with him again, also because he loves using the dolly.

  • ReaLITY | March 29, 2012 11:51 PMReply


  • utrect | March 29, 2012 11:48 PMReply

    What's Blake looking at, do you think? Looking over her shoulder from danger, maybe?

  • Stan Kube | March 29, 2012 11:28 PMReply

    I'm kinda digging this poster. It's better than Dark Shadows. Have no idea what the movie is like though

  • Blovely | March 29, 2012 11:26 PMReply

    Blake Lively rocked in this film and she looks hot as hell on the poster

  • Walt | March 29, 2012 11:17 PMReply

    Crazy movie. The next great, unique, American indie. Whoever said Casavettes was dead on.

    For every 10 Little Miss Sunshines we might get 1 HICK. A true indie. We should embrace that, not bitch about it.

  • Press | March 29, 2012 11:06 PMReply

    I saw it twice. Once at TIFF and again recently at a screening. It's been re-edited, tightened, since TIFF. I didn't think it was so bad longer at TIFF but the trimmed down version is definitely better. The poster looks really good. The actors are all great. Even Rory Culkin, Alec Baldwin, Juliette Lewis and Ray Mc Kinnon in small roles. It isw one of those "too good to be true" for actors, especially working with the actor friendly director of Lymelife at the helm. the screenplay was written by a novelist based on her novel. That's its largest failure IMO. Maybe it wasn't the best material for Martini to agree to do, but in hollywood as a director, sometimes you have to go with the film that is funded and make the best of it. Which I believe he did. It's cast well, shot well and well edited. It's still a dark tale, but Martini and the actors certainly mined the material for all it was worth.

  • Jewel | March 29, 2012 10:57 PMReply

    Risky story for any filmmaker or actor. Bravo for them for putting this on the screen. I'm prepared to be emotionally ripped up after watching this. But I am nervous.

  • henny | March 29, 2012 10:52 PMReply

    Eddie was so brilliant in this film they should have made his photo on the poster bigger.

  • Fill | March 29, 2012 10:22 PMReply

    I'd say it's worth it to watch the acting. I did not like the rape or implied rape. It made me angry. But it's a movie where you have 5 scenes in a row that are stunning and then a scene or 2 that don't work. And it plays out that way to the end. I can say this, I will NEVER forget Lloyd's Lagoon. That was a highlight. Probably worth watching for that scene alone.

    Boogie Nights comes to mind. Great scenes followed by mundane scenes, and on and on.

  • milady | March 29, 2012 9:38 PMReply

    I worked on both of Martinis films as part of the key crew. I have no personal love for him. He's a smart guy, takes no shit, and protects his actors like they were his children. I haven't seen the edited version of Hick, but after seeing Lymeife, after working on it, I have to say that there is virtually no chance that Hick will be anything less than a heck of a lot of great acting. I'd be shocked if Martini ever makes a movie with poor acting. And here we had Moretz, Redmayne, Baldwin, Juliette Lewis, Rory Culkin, Ray McKinnon, Blake Lively. And ALL of them on set were brilliant. Martini pushes and pushes and pushes until he and the actors are satisfied. This gets a bit tedious for crew, but it paid off in Lymelife and I'd be utterly shocked if it doesn't pay off in Hick.

  • Sean | March 29, 2012 9:02 PMReply

    This movie is not bad because it makes you feel uncomfortable. It's bad because there is nothing to see. The acting is fine for the most part (Redmayne was the stand out for me) but the script and uneven direction kill any chances the film has of critical success. Also, Lively isn't as terrible in this film as she is in everything else... make of that what you will.

  • MILADY | March 30, 2012 10:56 AM

    Kangaroo-Boy. Yes I worked on both films Lymelife and Hick. Based on the 25 films I've worked on, Lymelife was definitely in my top 1-3 because of the set experience and the actual finished movie, which I thought was great. Hick was also a great set experience.

  • Kangaroo | March 30, 2012 1:52 AM

    My bad, "Milady" worked on the film. Are all of Lymelife's people on this page or what? Damage control central, apparently.

  • KANGAROO | March 30, 2012 1:51 AM

    To be fair, Sean didn't say that the script was the product of the direction... he said the script AND direction were bad which I completely agree with. And "Milady"- I love brave filmmaking... but Hick is not that. Young Adult is brave, ballsy filmmaking. Hick is crap.

  • Milady | March 29, 2012 10:50 PM

    The story is uncomfortable in the script and the book. It's brave filmmaking. Maybe that's "bad" for you SEAN because it's not safe. But it is definitely well acted and directed. So you are WRONG.

  • Franklyn | March 29, 2012 10:24 PM

    SEAN, the SCREENPLAY and novel is UNEVEN, not the directing. The directing encompasses the shots, performances and tone. Which all seemed right on considering the book and screenplay.

  • hailee | March 29, 2012 8:47 PMReply

    Chloe looks good. She'll be a great Carrie.

  • Aaron | March 29, 2012 8:46 PMReply

    Love/Hate at the same time.

  • Al | March 29, 2012 8:27 PMReply

    Now I'm intrigued. I loved loved loved Lymelife, Let Me In and Savage Grace. And all of this polarity has me salivating.

  • Isley | March 29, 2012 8:26 PMReply

    Whoever said "demented" has it right. I've seen it, I won't say when because I was not supped to be there. But it is demented. And sort of cruel. But I liked it a lot. Ballsy acting and filmmaking.

  • Percy | March 29, 2012 8:23 PMReply

    This article is actually spot on. The movie as a whole is a showcase for the actors to play very serious, fun, dark roles. I know it's based on a book, written by the author, but it felt like a Casavettes (John, to his Nick) movie. All about the actors all the time. Showing all kinds of talent. The story is definitely not a blot of shame, it's just not much of a story. I'm 50/50 on this one. I wan't disappointed because the acting was truly surprising, but I wasn't sure how I felt about the end. It left me worried for the Moretz character as opposed to resolving it fully. Worth seeing if you love cinema. Not worth seeing if you just want to be entertained. This director, of Lymelife, seemed to take pleasure in Hick by making the audience uncomfortable. Which is the opposite of Lymelife, which was a real pleasure, good cinema, etc. But he took a turn here into the world usually reserved for Todd Solondz and Todd Field. Actually pretty versatile, if you ask me. I was shocked at the turns this move took. But, then again, maybe he was just following the script. I did not read the book.

  • Hackattack | March 30, 2012 2:57 PM

    I read this early morning. Not sure if these are multiple accounts or just one person trolling PL on here.

    Kangaroo i've seen you post here before and that's about it.

    I guess the nice thing is that Martini has a good reputation / people trying to support him and his career. This film doesn't appear to be a moneymaker or blockbuster... just a character piece. Netflix instant stuff. Not sure I'd even see it in the theatre or at a fest. I like Mortez the more i see her, and this felt like a young smart actress taking an edgier role.

  • KANGAROO | March 30, 2012 1:48 AM

    Disagree, I think the direction of this film was sloppy as hell. Field is terrific with dark, unnerving material and he tends to co-write his scripts- another area that was highly problematic.

  • PERCY | March 29, 2012 10:27 PM

    KANGAROO maybe it was the material that had me torn. But Field would have done no better.

  • Kangaroo | March 29, 2012 9:05 PM

    Todd Field would have been perfect for this film but dude knows when to stay away from shitty material.

  • nihil | March 29, 2012 8:13 PMReply


    Where's the trailer??

  • Ryan | March 29, 2012 8:11 PMReply

    "curiosity" my ass. This one's a stinker.

  • Letmeout | March 29, 2012 8:09 PMReply

    Hot poster. Should I be saying that about Moretz? Isn't she 15? Whatever. It's hot. So is Blake Lively! And if I were gay, I'd probably like the cowboy on top too.

  • peacekeeper | March 29, 2012 8:08 PMReply

    This film will get no love from me, even if I do like the poster. Which, surprisingly, I do. Despite some really good acting and camera work, it is really disturbing in the end.

    F-U whoever made this.

  • Fanboy | March 29, 2012 8:05 PMReply

    Saw it. Eddie Redmayne almost steals the movie from Chloe. Almost. Finest acting Lively has ever done and I am not a Lively hater. I'm just sayin', she cries a lot. So maybe that's "good acting". It's ok, overall, not nearly as bad as some people think, but you have to like this kind of no holds barred drama with some weird, awkward comedy here and there.

  • GLatt | March 29, 2012 7:46 PMReply

    YES! Totally demented movie! I saw it at Toronto. No one walked out! That's BS. People were weeping at the end!

    But it is one tough movie. I would only recommend it to people who have the stomach for some pretty grueling emotional stuff. Other wise, stay away.

    Pitch perfect acting, BTW.

    I'm seeing it again!

  • Jared H | March 29, 2012 8:56 PM

    GLATT, you were most definitely NOT at TIFF if you think people were "weeping at the end" and "no one walked out." Pitch perfect acting? Dude you just gave yourself away as a complete moron. The film was SO uneven- by the end, you there is some serious second hand embarrassment for all involved.

  • My Zoo | March 29, 2012 7:42 PMReply

    Looks like a pretty cool poster to me.

  • GLATT | March 29, 2012 9:09 PM

    Jared, I was at TIFF. I saw the film. I remember the acting most. I saw it at the WINTERGARDEN THEATER. Maybe I didn't SEE anyone walking about because I was actually watching the film and not giving a s**t about who walked out.

    Movie starts with Moretz on school steps. Dad crashes car into a trash bin or something while picking her up. HEr 13the birthday is at a bar with her drunk parents. She runs away from home. Meets Redmayne first. She insults him. He trows her out of the car. Then Lively picks her up, reluctantly. They do meth, rob a store. The clerk dies. Something happens at a bowling alley, I think. Then Redmayne follows them and it turns out Lively has a crazy husband who berates Redmayne in front of Moretz and Lively. Then Redmayne and Moretz leave and go out on the road where stuff goes really wrong. The ending is on a bus.

    I saw it. And yes, the acting was pitch perfect. Demented story (I left out the really dark stuff) but it was entirely engrossing. Sorry you didn't like it, but maybe if you would have payed attention to the screen as opposed to the usual festival people rudely walking around screening rooms, you may have liked it too. Your loss.

  • Jerky2 | March 29, 2012 7:38 PMReply

    A "blot of shame" is strangely appropriate. I saw this at TIFF too and it made me feel ASHAMED. I can't say that I did not enjoy it. I actually want to scream "I HATE THIS MOVIE" but I can't. It lingered in my mind for a couple of days afterwards. Usually proof that I saw something memorable. Was it a memorable mess? No sir. It kept me hooked in and made me feel ashamed, uncertain...I think it was designed that way. I have no idea. But it made me feel like I was hit by a train.

    By far the best performances from the festival. Moretz is basically the whole movie. But Redmayne and Lively are pretty important characters. Redmayne is pure raw talent. He is the most disarming freaky creep I've seen on film in a long time. Everything with Redmayne and Moretz was riveting. A very weird relationship. All the stuff with Lively and Moretz was kind of fun.

    In an effort to sum it up, this is the kind of pure INDIE that is not polite. Little Miss Sunshine, it is not. It's more like "screw narrative, screw logic, screw you if you can't follow it, screw you if you don't like it, we had the balls to make it, now watch if you dare".

    I think that's a fair assessment. And this poster, it only hints at how f-ed up things get.

  • KangaROO | March 29, 2012 6:53 PMReply

    The poster looks like it was made in a middle school art class. This movie is dreadful... I saw it at TIFF and while I didn't walk-out like many others in the theater, I was shocked at just how bad it was. Bad script, uneven acting, and vacant direction. This might just be a blip in Moretz's (and maybe Redmayne's) otherwise impressive resume, but everyone else has some explaining to do. Strange they haven't released a trailer yet.

  • Barbara | March 30, 2012 10:43 AM

    KANGAROO, the majority of critics haven't seen the film! I don't think there will be any love affairs going on between the critics and the film, maybe for the acting, but you're off base to say "majority" when maybe 5-6 marginal "critics" have actually viewed the film. Are we really counting bloggers as critics these days?

  • KANGAROO | March 30, 2012 1:46 AM

    Barbara- You sound like you're involved with the film in some capacity, so I understand and praise your efforts to make it seem like the "walks outs" were purely business related. Even if that's the case- the general consensus with this film right out of TIFF was that it was one of the worst films that played the festival. A friend of mine compared it to Hound Dog- how it played at TIFF the year prior. Point is- I saw the film and I thought it was horrible. Easily the most unfocused and problematic of all the films I saw at TIFF (and I saw plenty). You can defend the "walk outs" all you want but that's not the point. The film is a mess and CLEARLY a majority of critics hated this film just as much as I did. It's dreadful and I don't care if it was acquired 2 seconds after it played at TIFF- that doesn't necessarily have to do with the quality of the film (and clearly in this case, quality was glossed over). Also, for those who keep saying that I was paying too much attention to the walk-outs- lazy, lazy argument. Obviously it's distracting and HIGHLY noticeable when people in front of you/sitting near you/in your line of VISION are getting up and walking out of the theater. I can pay attention to the film and notice walk-outs just fine, but thanks for your concern.

  • An Honest Note | March 30, 2012 1:17 AM

    Seriously this is an obvious DAMAGE CONTROL from the Martini's and their group of friends / Producers /Agents / etc.

    This film sucks. Badly. The best you could say to me is "oh you don't understand art"...fine..but it's not entertaining. I think I got that it tried to be a My Own Private Idaho / Buffalo 66 type of tale. The worst thing you can do is go onto this page and do DAMAGE CONTROL. The problem w/ Lymelife was that it was a mediocre debut that had a publicist or friends or both defend it and say it's Garden State. That's not how you get work anymore.

    Derick, you might be reading this, people think you're a good guy. People also know that you put a lot of time into this. People in general would be happy if you succeeded. But the movie felt like it wanted to be great instead of tried to be great. On paper, it had a lot that made people think it would be great. A lot of it had to do with actors giving individual performances instead of working off each other.

    If people are hard in these reviews, it's because they think you might care. Or that , pehraps, you're a 'nice-enough-guy-to-listen-to-constructive-criticism'. We're hard on people like George Lucas or John Lasseter because we believe that they have it in them to be great.

    Steven Siebert is a horrible producer and all around shady guy. People don't really bad mouth him because of his wife's "power". My boss refused to do business with him after he weaseled around on a script. He's a patho that rarely gets crap done. Wiles should have known better but no one knows if she pumped the brakes or pulled the gas on this one.

    You need to surround yourself with people that you will listen to that are genuinely smart instead of just "hoping to get lucky in the business". Actors like you for your heart and your intelligence but you need someone with an honesty bat to tell you this stuff before you pour yourself into post and people walk out of your movies. Not more people that just sit around and inflate your ego. You obviously have great respect from your crew because of who you are... but that will go away when you make a bad film w/ them.

    Lymelife wasn't perfect, but it showed that you had talent that could be developed. Based on my experiences, this film wanted to be an oscar platform for Mortez and Lively more than it wanted to be a great movie. The easiest thing you can do is find someone who will tell you if it's an enjoyable experience or crap. No one had the balls to tell you that... even though people who were lowly assistants around town knew that the material was vanilla at best.

    It needed a rewrite. It needed reshoots. It needed a better editor. And it needed a real producer. But maybe most importantly... it didn't feel like you knew who you were when telling this simple story. Outside of the chance to work w/ Oscar caliber actors... I don't know if you cared about this as much as maybe someone else did. I used to be the TA at a USC Grad glass and had to grade student's films. This feels like the student who was too busy doing everything but direct this movie.

    Best of luck dude. And feel happy. You have a network of friends that fought for you to not see the bad of all of this. You'll get to make another film. And life is all about redemption.

  • Barbara | March 29, 2012 11:13 PM

    KANGAROO, the answer is usually "no". Especially when you are paying too much attention to people walking in and out of the theatre. Which is common at high profile festival premieres. Part of the people who left that screening reportedly were Japanese distributors who bought the film for Japan after the first ten minutes of the film. And most of the others were various acqusition execs looking for the sales agent to make initial offers. It's a MISCONCEPTION that people walking out are disappointed with the film. IT's usually people who see an opportunity to get a bid in early. Which was clearly the case here. Even if not everyone loved the film, due to its cast and pedigree it got bids before the first 25 minutes of the film were over. Thus the "walk outs".

  • KANGAROO | March 29, 2012 8:54 PM

    WTF? Can't a person just dislike a film without having some sort of hidden agenda? If I've a spurned lover or a former employee, then I must have been REALLY busy for the later of the '90's because I hated a lot of films during that time.

  • Nancy | March 29, 2012 7:48 PM

    Yeah. A burned, spurned lover maybe? I hate these people. They're everywhere. They either bash a film or bash an actor in the film. It's pathetic.

  • MY ZOO | March 29, 2012 7:43 PM

    I think you're lying. It sounds like you were fired from the film and have an axe to grind.

Email Updates