I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

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.

"A Painted House" is a disappointment in many ways. Some of the criticisms found in these reviews correctly point to the fact that Luke, the young protagonist of the movie who is seemingly based on the author John Grisham, never seems to change much in the course of the movie, even though he has witnessed a murder, an attempted murder, a threatened murder, and the total destruction of his family's crops. Still, as played by Logan Lerman, he maintains the same spacey, innocent look throughout, hardly growing at all even though what he has witnessed might well have shaken him profoundly.The movie also leaves us with a slew of loose ends, almost as if it was designed exclusively to fit into a TV time slot. So, we never know if Luke's uncle comes back from the Korean War, we never know if the police solve Hank's murder or even how Hank's family reacts to his disappearance, we never find out whether anything can save the farm that Luke's mother and father abandon, and we certainly never find out how Luke and his family make out in the North — a part of the country that this poor Southern family seems to hate.But the worst aspect of this movie flows from the only really endearing part of the movie: the very touching relationship between the 10-year-old Luke and the late teenager Tally. It is charming to watch the development of that relationship: Tally seems to think that Luke is cute, while Luke develops a crush on this beautiful young woman – obviously the first romantic feeling that young Luke has ever had. It is doubtless very sad for him when Tally runs off to marry the hot-blooded Cowboy.But that is the problem: Luke has witnessed Cowboy kill Hank, and Hank is Tally's brother. Why in the world would a 10-year-old kid not react much more intensely to his first young love running off with the man who murdered her brother? Would he not have tried to stop her? If he couldn't, would he not at least have been tortured by the thought of her going off with a murderer? Instead, Luke simply tells his grandfather what he has seen and then they decide, with almost no emotion, that it would be better not to tell anyone about the murder. End of story.It is hard to think of a less realistic and less emotionally satisfying ending to the movie — perhaps a perfect ending to a bland, emotionless movie which takes two listless hours to go absolutely nowhere.

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.

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".