mcheiten "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.

Juliabohemian-1 I finally got around to watching this, mostly because I've always had a thing for Robert Sean Leonard. I prepped myself by reading the book in advance, since I've learned from all of John Grisham's other films that they often suffer much in the transition. He's maybe better than Stephen King in that regard, and that's not saying much.An all-star cast (especially veterans like Scott Glen and Melinda Dillion) are wasted in this made-for-television rendition of Grisham's supposed "coming of age, Korean war, post-depression era" story. The book itself almost lacks a plot and reads more like a diary, written from the perspective of a boy who has been sheltered by his family of simple cotton farmers.The characters, like in many of Grisham's books/films, are cultural stereotypes that lack depth and have predictable agendas. The plot was even predictable. It was almost painful to keep reading. The boy spies on the girl while she bathes in the stream. The girl next door was knocked up by the brother. The city-folk cousin is offended by his extended family's backward lifestyle. Sacrifices must be made in order to survive. The time and location has been changed, but it's somehow still an episode of Dawson's Creek.

Sneaky_Pete_XXVII 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.

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.