A Painted House (2003 TV Movie) User Reviews

Maybe sometimes, we forget

[newmans · 6/10 · 24 February 2006]

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.

Lacks the intensity of the book, but a decent tale to watch.

[KMLBFL · 7/10 · 28 April 2003]

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.

Kind of a non-story

[aileen_588 · 6/10 · 28 April 2003]

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.

Nicely done story of hard times in 1950s Arkansas

[vchimpanzee · 28 April 2003]

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.

Not That Bad

[tractorbeatfrog · 6/10 · 16 September 2014]

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.

"You ever see paint, boy?"

[classicsoncall · 7/10 · 8 September 2012]

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.

Two Hours To Go Nowhere

[mcheiten · 2/10 · 2 April 2013]

"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.

Farm life through the eyes of a ten year old boy

[csmith234 · 8/10 · 28 April 2003]

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".

A big disappointment

[dmasursky · 4/10 · 13 July 2010]

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.

Really good

[jewelch · 8/10 · 10 April 2021]

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.

The ending was a dud

[islampure · 3/10 · 1 May 2003]

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.

Little House on the Cotton Fields

[Katz5 · 6 November 2003]

I read John Grisham's novel over the summer and have to say that this movie is just too watered down. The book was grittier and should have been made into a theatrical movie, instead of becoming "Hallmarkized." With the music, the stiff acting and the script, I felt like I was watching The Waltons or a certain Michael Landon/Melissa Gilbert '70s show. Nothing wrong with a family movie, but the book had more of an edge and I think was closer to Grisham's real life experiences than this watered down version. Examples (SPOILERS ALERT): 1. Hank's sudden source of income. In the book he earned it gambling and spent a lot of time at the carnival. In fact, the entire carnival/wrestler segment, which stood out in the book, is missing from the movie. 2. The conflict between Hank and Cowboy seemed staged and silly. Cowboy didn't have a "West Side Story"-like switchblade in the book, either. It was a large buck knife, as I remember. 3. Tally was barefoot, indicating the poverty level of the Spurills. She was not wearing Keds. 4. The segments in the book between Tally and Cowboy were a little more intimate than just embracing in the fields. 5. The Latcher subplot was just an aside. In the book, it is a lot more significant.

You get the point--this should have been a hard, PG-13 movie instead of a Hallmark Hall of Fame presentation (which will probably get a PG on video as there is a little violence, albeit very muted). In fact the only reason I watched this was because of Scott Glenn, who was perfect as Pappy. Maybe they'll try it again, for the theater!

Has the writer ever visited the South?

[tvchic · 3/10 · 12 September 2004]

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.

Excellent coming of age drama in the Arkansas cotton fields in 1952

[Mark Bruno · 10/10 · 28 April 2003]

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.

Sort of a shotgun style of directing.

[nicholsonlarry-72025 · 5/10 · 11 June 2022]

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.

One of the countless good Grisham adaptations

[bellino-angelo2014 · 8/10 · 23 January 2024]

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.

Boring

[pumping_iron-1 · 2/10 · 7 June 2020]

A coming of age movie about a boy growing up in Arkansas in the fifties, during the Korean War. The main character, Luke, never really "came of age" as there was no character development. This kid's demeanor never changed, even after witnessing two murders. There are two things that annoyed me the most about this movie. (1) Luke never told the truth about Hank beating that man to death with the board. (2) Cowboy was portrayed as the bad guy after killing Hank in self defense. When Cowboy saw that Luke had witnessed the incident, he was portrayed as this evil vicious villain, threatening Luke if he told anyone. This portrayal of Hank made no sense to me. Luke told his grandfather about this incident. However, he never clarified that Cowboy was defending himself. There was no real ending to the movie. It left you wondering if Luke and his family made it up north; if Ricky returned home from the war; if the Chandlers knew that Libby's baby was part of their family. A disappointment.

Different from all other Hallmark presentaions

[geja2001 · 28 April 2003]

I did not read the novel upon which this film is based. Perhaps, A Painted House is a commentary on a real person's life, and all the incredible events shown are true. My comments concern the television film. **SPOILERS** This Hallmark production featured two men being killed, a young kid watching a teen-aged girl bathing in a creek, and two people, one a Mexican (or "wetback," as they were called in the film) and the other a "hill" girl running away northward -- hardly Hallmark fare. I did like the relationships between grandson and grandpa and between husband and wife, and their struggles to make a profit seemed real, especially on a cotton farm in 1950's Arkansas. The parts that seemed unreal were the mother's constant cheerfulness, the money spent on paint, the clean, clean loft conveniently vacated by the pickers to accommodate the displaced, poor family, and the absence of any farm pets. I liked their having no animals -- none to get hurt for dramatic purposes. Throughout the entire film I kept wondering: What is the plot? Does all this really occur in one season for a kid? And will Hallmark ever get all new adverts? And where is Ricky?

This film I shall not be purchasing. Hallmark is supposed to be Hallmark!

Just read the book

[ddlvwrkhi · 5/10 · 24 September 2020]

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"

Enjoyed the BOOK !

[whpratt1 · 10/10 · 15 September 2004]

Greatly enjoyed John Grisham's great story about a warm and kind family in the South who had the hard task of picking Cotton for a living and never painting their home. All the actors did a fantastic job of portraying what a very hard life it was in 1952 trying to find Mexican help and poor White families to assist in the picking process. Grisham's book went into more detail and the picture sort of chopped up the entire story, especially the scene where Luke, a young boy takes a peek at a girl taking a swim in the nude. Luke also witnesses a murder and plays a funny trick on a Yankee Lady who has to use the OUT HOUSE! Great film which makes you laugh and CRY !

It Might've Been Good

[rizzojr · 5/10 · 18 May 2006]

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.

A Nicely Done Film

[Ginger87 · 9/10 · 17 September 2004]

*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.

It didn't make it.

[Pistach · 28 April 2003]

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.

Good depiction of an era

[Cleydael · 8/10 · 24 December 2010]

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.

A Life Led with Love

[spheckma · 9/10 · 4 June 2012]

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.