Danielle I didn't read the book by John Grisham that this movie was based on, but I still found it lacking in several ways. I understand that it's supposed to be a coming-of-age story, where "reality" intrudes on the child's idyllic life, but the way it was presented was quite off-putting to me. I also realize that Grisham's book is a novel, but it's quite obviously based on his actual childhood, with lots of shots of the adorable, wide-eyed boy, Luke, "experiencing" life.It had some good moments, but mostly I thought it was a dull and sentimentalized remembrance of a childhood in rural Arkansas in the 1950s. Worse, despite the folksy setting, I thought the story was completely missing any kind of moral compass.The family picks cotton, goes into town on Saturday, and sits on their porch gossiping about the stereo-typically portrayed hillbillies and Mexicans that work their farm.The non-existent plot meanders through a series of mostly unrelated events. A migrant worker staying on the family's land kills a local man in a fight and the boy lies about it to his parents and the local sheriff (who notes that it's not a "murder" unless someone nice has died). Later, another migrant kills the first migrant, which the boy again happens to witness. He eventually tells his grandfather about this second murder, who encourages him to keep it a secret between the two of them, as no good could come from telling.About halfway through, the family discovers that the (inexplicably gorgeous) daughter of the poor sharecroppers down the road has had a baby secretly fathered by their beloved older son who is off in Korea. There is no further comment on this development. Oh yeah, and my favorite part - Our Hero (who is 10 years old) sneaks a peek at a grown woman bathing in the creek; later she tells him she knows he was watching, but she doesn't mind, that's just what boys do.While all this is going on, the mentally deficit brother of the first migrant worker paints the family's house for no discernible reason, with paint purchased with apparently mystical resources, since everyone is literally dirt poor.At the end, the cotton crop is destroyed by a flood and the family moves to Chicago so the father can get a job in the Buick plant, secured by a visiting cousin whose "Yankee" wife Luke intentionally humiliates in an earlier scene, with the hearty approval of the rest of the family. (Her crime? Showing her distain for the crude way that they live. Of course, Luke's mother openly yearns to escape the very things that the cousin's wife finds so unappealing. But still, the wife must be punished for her snobbery.)Not sure what the moral of this story was supposed to be, but I was pretty disgusted by the end of it. The consistently bad behavior of the Chandler family is portrayed with a rosy hue that makes it all seem very salt-of-the-earth and down-home. There wasn't a single moment in the movie where any character condemns these many appalling actions. I found it rather repulsive and not at all entertaining.Of course, the cast was terrific, with Scott Glenn and Melinda Dillon as the grandparents, and Robert Sean Leonard as the dad. The acting by Logan Lerman, as Luke, was good. The setting was certainly authentically portrayed. But, overall, I wish I'd spent my 99 minutes watching something else.What's happened to Hallmark movies? I have fond memories of them from my childhood, but they've either gotten much worse or I've completely outgrown them.

Ginger87 *MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS*"A Painted House" was a very well done movie. I saw it on CBS last week and found it to be very enjoyable. I read the book last year in school for a book report and found this to be a good adaptation of it. The acting was very well done, the scenery was good, and the music was very good. I just wish that the movie followed the exact outline of the book, which was a very good novel. Somethings were different between the two but, then again you can't fit everything into a two hour movie. Overall I think this a very good movie and give it 9/10 stars. Everyone should watch it if they get a chance.

aileen_588 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.

Pistach 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.