User reviews

Maybe sometimes, we forget, with our plush life and current definition of "poverty", what things were like for rural "working poor" even as recently as the 50's. Survival, even for a man who owned the land, took a different strength of character. Is it good, or is it regretful those times have passed? More money yes, but were better times up North in the auto plants? I suppose, but this is nostalgia, and not bad either.

It was a good family movie, narrated like the Waltons, I kept waiting for "goodnight Luke-boy". Yah, Little House on the Prairie too, a bit more reality, but did other commenters really expect this to be as complete as the book, any book? Personally, I'm tired of hearing book-readers whine about "what they left out". Don't watch movies if you read the book.

This is certainly wandering reminiscences, but that's another type of literature too, isn't it? Why does every story have to be going somewhere special? To me it's a pretty good coming of age movie and worth the hour and a half at least, and always a pleasure watching Scott Glenn, when he gets good parts.

Overall entertaining, but you will not find the movie as captivating as the book. I thought that the film was entertaining, but never delivered the emotion and punch that I felt while reading the novel. The Spruill characters were believable, but I had imagined Hank to be a larger and more menacing physical specimen than the movie portrayed.

To the other reviewer I would say that this isn't groundbreaking television or anything but it is hardly as bad as you are making it out to be.

It's just your average TV production, a made for TV movie that actually won an Emmy so it can't be that atrocious can it? Not sure why you hate it so much that you would go online and bash it and make personal accusations about the author and other people involved simply from disliking the movie.

I can'd speak for how realistic it is but as someone who knows nothing about cotton farming but knows a little about farming in general I thought it was realistic enough for a TV story. And I thought the acting was good.

In Arkansas during the Korean War, 10-year-old Luke Chandler lives with his parents and grandparents on a farm where cotton is the primary crop. To pick the cotton, the family must hire 'hill people' and Mexicans. The hill people do not get along particularly well with those who look down on them, and sometimes they get into fights. Hank Spruill is especially prone to getting in trouble. One day in the house, he makes demands of Luke and, figuring Luke looks down on him, points out that at least his house is painted, while to Luke's family, paint is a luxury. Later in the movie, part of the house has been mysteriously painted. The prime suspect is Hank's disabled brother Trot, who can't work in the fields.

Luke witnesses a fight Hank gets into that results in a death. He is afraid to tell the truth since Hank doesn't like him anyway, but the police officer who investigates appears satisfied with the explanation of self-defense. Hank's teenage sister appears to be falling for Luke at first, but later she is seen with Cowboy, one of the Mexicans, and Hank already despises Cowboy.

The hard life on the farm is made even worse by several weather events during the second half of the movie. The promise of better times ahead is suggested when Luke's cousin shows up in a brand new Buick (Luke has never even been in a car, only trucks). His spoiled rich wife can't believe people have to live like this and is horrified by having to use an outhouse (This was one of my favorite scenes; Kiersten Warren is so good in roles like this). Also, the whole town is excited by a new thing called television and the idea of actually being able to watch the World Series. Luke is a Cardinals fan, but he gives up his dream of a Cardinals jacket for something more important.

This is almost a family movie. There are two violent scenes that result in deaths (both witnessed by Luke; the second time, the person responsible threatens Luke's mother if he tells). People get into fights a lot in this environment, but the others are no big deal. Other possible red flags for parents: the birth of a child to an unwed mother, and the identification of a possible father. Other than these incidents, this movie could be acceptable viewing for the entire family.

This movie was well done, and I thought the performances by many of the actors were good. I especially liked Luke's grandfather, who could be stern but tender. Not everyone has an easy life, and those of us who had it too soft can learn a lot from a movie such as this.

Overall, it was an ok made for t.v movie. The acting was good, and there was nothing particularly wrong with the cinematography. The only problem was the story line. It goes from here to there with nothing to tie it together in between. The movie also comes with a rather un-satisfying ending. But if you are at home one night with nothing else to do it is an enjoyable-enough two hours.

I grew up in Memphis, TN. across the river from where this movie was made. I can relate to the farm life portrayed. I read the book by Grisham and was surprised to see the story line was followed so well by the movie. Not like some others such as "The Firm" by Grisham. The special effects were good (Tornado) and the scenes in town were very good. The local extras were well chosen. Another Hallmark production that deserves an "A".

Perhaps sometimes, we forget, with our plush life and current definition of "poverty", what things were like for rural "working poor" even as recently as the 50's. Survival, even for a man who owned the land, took a different strength of character. Is it good, or is it regretful those times have passed? More money yes, but were better times up North in the auto plants? I suppose, but this is nostalgia, and not bad either. It was a good family movie, narrated like the Waltons, I kept waiting for "goodnight Luke-boy". Yah, Little House on the Prairie too, a bit more reality, but did other commenters really expect this to be as complete as the book, any book? Personally, I'm tired of hearing book-readers whine about "what they left out". Don't watch movies if you read the book. This is certainly wandering reminiscences, but that's another type of literature too, isn't it? Why does every story have to be going somewhere special? To me it's a pretty good coming of age movie and worth the hour and a half at least, and always a pleasure watching Scott Glenn, when he gets good parts. James Welch Henderson Arkansas 4/9/2021.

Seeing names like Robert Sean Leonard, Scott Glenn, and Logan Lerman in a Hallmark TV movie is enough to pique my interest. The fact that it's based on a John Grisham novel is an added bonus.

While "A Painted House" (2003) may not be the strongest entry in either of their filmographies, it's still a pleasure to see this cast together. As a Logan Lerman fan, it was particularly enjoyable to see him in his younger years. He was just a kid, barely recognizable!

I've always felt that Alfonso Arau is an underrated filmmaker. His direction in "A Painted House" is subtle yet effective, capturing the essence of rural life in 1950s Arkansas. He draws nuanced performances from the cast, particularly Scott Glenn, who delivers a powerful and moving portrayal of a man struggling with his past.

The film's cinematography, by Alar Kivilo, is also noteworthy. The warm, sun-drenched visuals of the Arkansas countryside create a sense of nostalgia and longing. The film's score, composed by Van Dyke Parks, is equally evocative, perfectly complementing the film's emotional tone.

While "A Painted House" may not be a masterpiece, it's a well-crafted and heartwarming film that tells a compelling story about family, friendship, and the importance of home. It's a film that deserves to be rediscovered and appreciated for its subtle charm and understated power.

This movie had potential describing a southern family with a young boy at the center of it. I was disappointed in how the movie ended, because it did not leave the viewers with a sense of completion which I would expect out of a Hallmark movie.

I'll cut to the chase... there have been lots of adaptations on both movies and TV based on John Grisham novels don't they? THE FIRM, THE PELICAN BRIEF, THE CLIENT (the 1994 movie and the TV show that was made in the two following years), THE CHAMBER, A TIME TO KILL and RUNAWAY JURY are just a few and also the most overplayed on TV. Curiously in the same year of RUNAWAY JURY they made yet another adaptation but as a TV movie, A PAINTED HOUSE. After all those adaptations one would ask if this up-teenth adaptation is good as the others or not. My answer would be... it is, and now I'll discuss it.

The story is set in 1950s Arkansas when the Chandler family composed by Eli (Scott Glenn), Kathleen, Jesse (Robert Sean Leonard), Granny (Melinda Dillon), Luke (Logan Lerman) has to face lots of hardships because the cotton harvest hasn't been successful and they depend on it so they count on increase the production and sell it to the best buyers. They'll succedd not after they ask help to the Spruill family composed by Tally, Pops (Geoffrey Lewis) and Hank (Pablo Schreiber), and the Chandler family will also manage to finish painting the barn referred in the title.

The premise is good but the main reason to watch this is the acting. Glenn as usual never disappoints, Schreiber and Sean Leonard are the standouts of the supporting players and overall, there is a certain feel good atmosphere to it that it makes this a perfect comfort movie (in other words, one of those movies one watches when doesn't want to think too much). Worth seeing since it's also available on YouTube.

A Painted House probably would have been a decent Hallmark Hall of Fame movie on its own. Unfortunately, the movie is a based on a book of the same title by John Grisham. More often than not, the book is better than the movie. This in due, in most cases, to time constraints, where unimportant events from the book are left out of the movie. Yet, as a Painted House unfolded on my screen, I was surprised at to what was included versus what was not. Also, the pace at which the movie takes place is quite rapid. While watching the movie, I actually felt as if I was seeing the Cliff Notes version of the book on screen where I was receiving just enough information to "pass the test." If you haven't read the book, then I imagine the movie is worth a watch should it come on cable one night. However, if you have indeed read the book, spare yourself the 99 minutes and keep your memories of the book untarnished.

The story follows 10-year old Luke Chandler(Logan Lerman) in his experiences during the early 50's in Arkansas. Luke experiences murder, love, childbirth, flooding cotton fields, a Mexican labor camp, and the breaking up of two families. Although shown on TV on April 27, 2003, if it is re-broadcast on television or released on DVD, this would definitely be worth your while to watch. The most touching scenes are the ones showing bonding between Luke and his grandfather "Pappy"(Scott Glenn). Robert Sean Leonard plays Luke's father.

Awesome book. Not a good adaptation. If you had any idea that you might like this movie, read the book instead. My grandmother grew up in 50's - 60's Arkansas and told me the book is an accurate depiction of life there at that time. The movie doesn't come close to doing justice when compared to the book. And by the way I'm not even a "book reader"

I really have to wonder if the man who wrote this had ever been to the South-- not Grisham, but the script writer who adapted it for the screen. Just because we have an accent doesn't mean we're ignorant. We don't say "boy" at the end of every sentence and never in my life have I heard anyone say "Where the

Pete's sake did you find her?" "Pete's sake" is reserved for exclamatory remarks such as "Well, for Pete's sake." "Where the sam hill" would have worked better or "where on earth."

My guess is also, judging by the fake accents (almost on par with the hideous attempt Nicole Kidman makes in Cold Mountain, but not quite that bad) that

some of the actors have never visited the South either, which would be why they didn't catch the constrained dialogue.

This movie is basically a non-Southerner's attempt to make a Southern movie.

As far as that goes, spend your two hours watching O Brother Where Art Thou or Steel Magnolias instead--excellent Southern films done by strangers. But don't watch this movie looking for the South, because other than the grandma

passing out ice tea served on a tray, you won't see it.

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.

Basically the movie consisted of a few highlighted clips from the book. It failed to get across the essence of the book. In particular the sense of family and the desire and ability to help others regardless of economic status.

As I remember, hair was cut a lot shorter in 1952.

I'm sorry I watched the move as it destroyed the good memories that I had from the book.

Reminds me of Jerry Clower's famous "Well shoot up here amongst us..One of us got to have some relief." They're kind hearted bigots who flip-flop so often you'll identify with some part of their ways. Luke is all over the map with his lying about a cold blooded murder of a white trash neighbor then he lies again when Cowboy has to kill the same murderer in self-defense. Seems his moral teachings are based on skin color and social status.

And from the first second she appears Luke and Tilly have a very weird sexual undertone going on. He's a farmer...how curious could he be??? Then we have ol' Can't Get Right with his mysterious affliction that prevents him from even lying under the cotton wagon instead of taking away a pair of hands to watch him. Only he is walking to town buying paint and painting a house so neatly nobody sees paint spatter on his clothes and says 'That ol' boy there is painting our house.' Let's not forget the Uncle who knocked up the sharecropper's daughter has a family who is way above such people as sharecroppers and Siscos. They are all fine 'Christians' of the old Plantation morals. Why Massah Chandler what y'all doing in those slave cabins at night???

Actually slaves usually got Sundays off but when the cotton was being picked it was in the fields before daylight until after dark and you ate in the fields 7 days a week. Be a darn shame if you wasted 2 hours a day going to the house for dinner and half of Saturday and all of Sunday doing nothing. It might rain and you'll lose a lot of cotton that should have been picked.