That was an excellent one.

A Masterpiece!

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

Boy, I don't know. The whole business about 'the secret' between the boy and his grandfather bothered me - a lot. I'm thinking about the role model implications on Pappy's (Scott Glenn) part, and the conflicted life young Luke (Logan Lerman) would have when the reality of witnessing two murders would finally kick in. The relationship between these two characters was admirable, but the lack of justice in bringing the truth forward is still upsetting me.Moving on. The film hooked me early when the narrator's voice theorizes about an old truck's optimal speed. In the mid Fifties, my Dad had a 1937 Chevy farm truck, and like Pappy's, it too had a top speed of thirty seven miles per hour. How weird is that? And that business about taking a bath every Saturday whether you needed it or not - I've heard that one too, but for real. In fact, (back to my Dad), he used to tell of an acquaintance who only washed his arms up to the point where a short sleeved shirt would cover the rest. Not making it up.So the hardscrabble life of an Arkansas cotton farm presented here seemed realistic enough to me. The era was depicted in a way that probably seems unbelievable today to modern viewers, what with a nickel matinée at the local theater, a five cent double cola and three cent popcorn. That seven fifty Cardinals jacket had to seem a world away to a kid like Luke, but through it all, the merit of hard work, rugged individualism and family values had a place in a bygone era that seems so distant today.What's almost an afterthought it seemed was the picture's title, as it takes on a quiet life of it's own before the story builds into a farm community event of sorts. I liked the idea that the Mexicans would pitch in to help with the chore, ostensibly to keep busy, but showing genuine friendship for a farmer who provides seasonal work year after year. The way the Chandlers share their meager bounty with the Latchers also demonstrated genuine compassion for others even less fortunate. When these Hallmark concepts work they work very well, but by ranging a little too far outside their traditional box, this film seemed to provide more questions than answers.

This multi-generational movie shows us a way of life where despite the poverty level of the family love is the abiding premise that holds the family together. In addition family members we are exposed to share cropper families and a family in even more desperate straight, but despite their limited resources of the main characters we see them reach out to neighbors who are even less fortunate. The acting is somewhat ensemble with Scott Glenn as the grandfather. All are superb in their roles. The overall feel of the time an place true to the story. Tidbits of life a throw in such as Tally, as played by Aurdry Marie Anderson admitting to Luke, played by a young Logan Lerman that she didn't mind him watching her bath in the river as that was what boys did. The move was a surprise considering I never thought of John Grisham's stories to be a writer of this ilk of story. It was a very pleasant change.

I happened upon this film quite by accident, while channel surfing for something to watch to fill in the time while waiting for it to be Christmas at midnight.What a pleasant surprise! Unlike most people, I'm not a big John Grisham reader, and had never heard of the book on which it's based, but having seen the film and read viewer reviews, I'm now eager to read the book. The one thing I didn't like about the film is that it ends too abruptly, with too many loose ends in the plot - particularly whether Ricky returns from the Korean War alive or not. There was such a sense of it being incomplete that I went to IMDb to check whether it was a two-part film or a mini-series and if so, where could I watch the rest of the story! What I really liked about "A Painted House" is that it really got across a strong sense of time and place for the cotton belt in the early 1950's. It conveyed the fact that these were simpler and in some ways more "wholesome" times, but unlike most Hallmark Channel fare, not in a saccharine way. Instead, it dealt with a lot of gritty, real-life issues like murder, unwed motherhood, ethnic and class tensions, and the moral compromises sometimes inherent in the small town mentality, but not in an overblown, sensationalist way, which I think was a particularly important balance to be struck for an autobiographical coming of age film told from the perspective of a 10 year old boy.Overall, the acting was very good, and I was pleasantly surprised to see Robert Sean Leonard from "House" as the young Grisham's father. By far the most memorable performance was Scott Glenn's portrayal of the grandfather, but Melinda Dillon (who turns out to be from Arkansas) was also excellent as the grandmother as was young Logan Lerman in the lead role and Pablo Schreiber as Hank, the bad boy of the Spruill "hill people" family of migrant workers.As someone who frequently works as either a production designer, costume designer or in some crew capacity involving art department / wardrobe / historical authenticity and general "look and feel" of an era, I've got to give major accolades to the production design team on this one and to other departments involved in the broad area of "look and feel" The locations were superb, the set dressing and costuming authentically styled and realistic aged / distressed, so that everybody looked like actual rural poor people. Too many shows overdo the dirt and it looks fake and ends up being condescending. On this film, clothes were shown to be sun-faded, worn and stained but with people making a respectable attempt to keep clean despite their limited means. When the cousin from up north came to visit with his Yankee / city slicker wife, the contrast was very effective.There were lots of wonderful 1950s props but these were presented in a realistic way, as an accretion of things from various earlier eras leading up to the early 50's. (Fabulous job on picture cars, particularly considering how many had to be acquired.) As a result, there was a real, palpable sense of time and place, which really "made" the film for me. The single exception in this area is that some of the men should have either had shorter hair or been Brylcreme'd to look right for 1952. "A little dab'll do ya" would have done wonders.Another pleasant surprise was going to IMDb to read the credits and finding out that the 1st and 2nd AD were people I actually know and have worked with before on other period-piece type projects. No wonder the details on this film were so good -- Donald Eaton and Lynne Wegenka know their stuff and make the trains run on time.Overall, I really enjoyed this film, even thought I felt that it left the audience hanging at the end, and am inspired to get a copy of the book and read it, in hopes that it will flesh out some of the missing parts of the story.

I was very engaged with the movie (or story)...Up to a point. I was very upset with the fact that they spent a fair time setting up a growing problem (which you could sense), then introducing the problem (the murder), then abandoning it, and then finally restarting a new story that doesn't quite fit. WHY DO THAT?! Like I said, I was totally engaged...Up to a point. And this is when everything went downhill! On the plus side, there was good acting. But I believe even if you do have good acting-if your plot isn't convincing (or doesn't make sense), then the audience won't focus on that, and therefore your acting isn't as significant. There are very few films that go off on a tangent (and that's a good thing), but when movies like, "A Painted House" and "Jeepers Creepers", do it (or I suppose any movie that does it), I can't help but lose interest, and become disappointed with it.