Rich Hill

source: Rich Hill

I just watched it yesterday, so forgive me for coming so late to the party. This movie was depressing, but familiar. My small town, while not as small as Rich Hill, has pockets of poverty which are similar. There are hundreds of thousands of very small towns which have the same sorts of issues all over the U.S. But that's not the point. The film makers came from this area and still were able to leave and make something of themselves. I think, if you aren't familiar with this sort of poverty, you might not realize it exists and THAT was their point. I loved Andrew, because he had so much hope. There was always a "reason" why they had to leave each home, even if it was because "God wanted us here". I could tell he was getting frustrated by the end, though. The 4th of July, when he bought fireworks for the neighbors and they set them off near the trailer park was great. Even though this took place a few years ago, the images were scenes of a life that could have happened 50 or 60 years ago. Quintessential, you might say of small town Midwestern USA. Even though Appachey's mom could be a bit rough, I felt like she was real. Right there in the trenches with her kids, doing the best she could and just letting it all hang out. She talked about not having choices and that was sad to me. Everyone should have choices. I hope she can find some way to get out of the place she's in and I hope Appachey goes along with her. There is some vestige of intelligence deep inside them both and I hope there's a way for them to reach it. Harley was a really sad case, but I felt even with all his problems, he was a good kid. It made me angry, though, when he was in the principal's office and was chastised and threatened for wanting to leave school. The principal showed very little understanding for Harley's problems and that was shameful. I do know the principal has a difficult job and likely some of his posturing was for show, but have a little sympathy. If something like what Harley has lived through had happened to his own child, I would hope he'd handle it better. I just think Harley would have been better served in a different environment. As always, the tough thing about these kinds of movies is things are never solved. At least, not the way we want them to be. There's a lot of repetition and a lot of undesirable generational behavior. As someone who tries to see the "big picture", it's frustrating, because just when one of these people has something good happen to them, they fall right back into their old behavior and it's gone again. They can't seem to see their options, if indeed they ever had any in the first place.

This movie is well made and shines a non-judgmental light on what everyone knows is a big problem in Missouri and the nation. I think everyone knows people like this in whatever community you live in. Should these people be judged? What is the takeaway here? I do feel sorry for these kids living in abject poverty, with no way to better themselves... Who is at fault for this. Not the kids. Tobacco. Alcohol. Drug abuse. It's like the parents are physically present, but have a maturity level that is even lower than their kids. I don't know what this movie is really about, but it's 100% true, and it's kind of troubling to watch.

Thought provoking documentary about poverty and its impact on families. Beautifully shot and edited. Captured some very intimate moments of the lives of three young lads. Its not preachy or judgemental but just gives you a slice of their lives It's easy for people to pass judgement and criticise the parents but no doubt the parents had a rough upbringing too and they therefore lack parenting skills. A very sad and touching film but very well produced and I'm glad I watched it.

Every country has this equivalent of society, which makes this a sort of compulsory viewing. It's a sobering, depressing look at life in a small American town. Rich Hill, Missouri gives a glimpse into a way of life for many, while also never displaying an agenda. It focuses on 3 young boys and their families. It's thought provoking stuff. It's real snapshot-of-life type film-making. It can be frustrating, annoying and just plain sad at times. But that is life itself. If there was ever a documentary well-deserving of a sequel, it would be this one. I can't help but wonder where these kids are now, how they are doing, and whether they have been able to overcome some of their challenges.

"Rich Hill" intimately chronicles the turbulent lives of three boys living in an impoverished Midwestern town and the fragile family bonds that sustain them. The camera could have been pointed at just about any city in America, whether in the Midwest or otherwise. But the fact this place is called "Rich Hill" and the story focuses on poverty gives it a certain kind of irony. This documentary is not pretentious and not inherently political. Some will want to put a political spin on it one way or another with their commentary about poverty in America and how to fix it (or how people get there in the first place). Some might even say this is not real poverty, as these kids are still getting by. But this is a snapshot of America circa 2014, and one that will hopefully look better in another decade.

I tried watching this before but could only get through like 20 minutes of the film. Very Depressing watching people live in these conditions, especially children. The United States gives other countries millions of dollars a year!! WRONG! Why can't we help people like this here in our own country? Anything to give them a boost, head start, whatever you want to call it? It was a great documentary and well made. Hopefully these families have received some help or have had help to pull them up out of the slump they're in??

Im baffled as to why this film gets such poor, or at least middling, reviews. This is one of the most captivating documentaries/films/shows i've ever watched. Im glad the filmmakers didn't try to explain the whys or wherefores, they just allowed the boys, their homes, the location to be the story in a truly fascinating and wonderful way. The relationship between andrew and his father is one of the most superbly captured father/son relationships I've ever seen on screen. I don't understand how people can feel frustration or anger while watching this movie and then give it a poor review. You're supposed to feel frustrated and angry! You're supposed to like Andrew! He seems like a great kid! You're supposed to want to give that other kid a kick in the ass! And his mom! To me thats the beauty of this film. I laughed, got mad, and even cried while watching it. I experienced the full spectrum of emotion throughout the 90or so mins Super filmmaking - I wish i could erase it from my memory so i could watch it anew all over again.

My wife and I both enjoyed this documentary, and we each felt pretty low after watching it. It was really well done, but it left a sour taste for sure, like biting into your first unripened persimmon. I both agree and disagree with the reviewer from Michigan. I think the point about this documentary not having a story arc is valid. There really is no growth in anyone in the film; they leave the film as they entered it, some pathetic and lazy, some disturbed, some ever-hopeful. But I think as a documentary, the film is entitled to do that. Perhaps that was the filmmakers' objective: Life in rural, poverty-stricken Missouri is like an unripe persimmon. Here's your bite. It sucks, and the unpleasant after-effects of that experience will linger for a long time. I also agree that this leaves me wanting more. I'd love a Ken Burns' style mega-doc that explores the how and the why of that slice of life. Poverty is certainly a spoke on that wheel - perhaps even the hub- but it's far from the only reason we felt so often disturbed by what we saw on the screen. Which leads me to my major disagreement with Michigan's review, which to me was a belief that there weren't many kids/families that could be that disturbed, lazy, dysfunctional, etc., or that the film presented that dynamic in an incorrect proportion to the reality. I spent twenty-plus years as a family therapist in a treatment center for severely emotionally disturbed kids and their families from rural and urban areas. They exist. Families and kids fall apart for multiple reasons. The families in this film had few options to help them deal with the ever- increasing severity of their problems. Poor people love their kids as much as rich people do; they just have far fewer ways to access help when things start falling apart. The juvenile justice system should be the last resort. There's no resources in these impoverished areas to help the more severe cases. But what I was really left with after watching this film was this: I know another reviewer requested this not be compared to Ferguson. I really want the comparison. When you look at the underlying dynamics of a community like Rich Hill versus an inner city neighborhood, there are many similarities: poverty level; educational opportunities through public education; strong family ties; mental illness; medical issues; unemployment and lack of available jobs. How are the impoverished citizens of Rich Hill exploited any less than any impoverished inner-city resident? Are their reactions to their situations different? If so, why? I'd love to see a filmmaker explore that.

Well made doc, but the parents.... Notice the abusive tones, drug addiction (constantly smoking cigs), terrible role-models, and much, much more. These parents have failed their kids more than anyone else has. It goes to show that education—although not absolutely conducive to success—sure as hell helps a lot in life. This just goes to show the economic disparity in this country. All I could think of is the fat cats sitting in their penthouses in clothes on that very minute that "cost more" than what all of those families have combined. The worst thing about this documentary is the truth behind it—the kids are the victims.