A Painted House (2003)

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.

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.

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.

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.