User Reviews

The problem with Hick is that this is a style over substance movie. For a film that delves into child neglect and sexual violence, maybe a toned down straightforward approach might have been much better. There's a sense that Hick might work better as a novel than a movie, where "voice" is easier to achieve, and that's how it began its life. The film's inability to develop Luli(Chloe Grace Moretz) into a compelling, sympathetic character early in the proceedings diminishes much of what transpires. The jagged disconnects and credulity-straining narrative developments that punctuate the screenplay create dissatisfaction. Although a catharsis is by no means mandatory in a story like this, Hick's half-hearted attempt to provide one leaves a bad aftertaste. Having said this the acting by Chole Grace is very good (and quite disturbing if you think about it). She is the beacon here and if there is one reason to see this film its her.(Gets the tone wrong but Moretz is a revelation).

Really, really bad movie.This is purportedly the reality of the author's life. I don't believe it for a minute. It was just disturbing and vulger. Chloe Grace Moretz performance wafted between bad, and oddly enough, astoundingly good. Her performance during the 'revenge' scene was absolutely amazing. But there were times when her overall performance was so bad it was uncomfortable to watch.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

I don't understand why the movie has so many bad critics as I found the movie very interesting and didn't want it to end. I would have watched it again for sure. I think it was a nice story and sometimes took one by surprise.

Hick feels at times like a pointless movie that has an Indie vibe to it but the performances by Chloe Grace Moretz, Blake Lively, and Eddie Redmayne keep you engaged. Moretz is young but she's a star in waiting. She manages to perfectly capture the essence of a teenager and the conflicting emotions you're bombarded with when you feel lost and alone in life. The plot drags but again, the hopelessness of Moretz's situation and how the characters around her are affected and affect the course of actions that play out are enough.

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

This certainly isn't a good film for the star Chloe Grace Moretz to continue her career with. Not long after the visually stunning Hugo. But it's really not too bad when you come to think of other movies which came out in the same year and genre.

I don't understand why people dislike this movie. It was pretty good. The story was comical and cool. The acting was good. It's not my favorite movie but it's definitely a movie worth seeing.

Good movie. The, sometimes disturbing, interactions between characters were fascinating and the narative was very well paced. I dont understand why its been panned so badly by critics.

I'm not going to lie I was pretty entertained watching the whole thing, but really confused where they were trying to go with this, but still entertaining to watch.