A Painted House

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.