I'm a fan of farmers but this mass-media notion that farmers are losing their shirts doesn't hold water in the real world. Unless they are VERY stupid, there are so many federal subsidies available, along with other programs, that farmers would never even consider growing pot. Plus, as pointed out by others, to just pick fresh plants and throw them into a garbage is not the way pot is sold (or so i've been told. Nod, nod, wink wink.) The movie itself is shallow, the characters ridiculous.

(Spoilers) "Cash Crop" goes something like this. Down-on-their-luck farmers grow pot to make ends meet. DEA agent blows into town. Farmers hide the pot. DEA agent leaves town. End of story.This flick features solid performances by some second tier actors, mediocre direction, and a so-so screenplay...but it ain't got no story. And since the story is the foundation of every drama, "Cash Crop" is an utter failure. Too boring to recommend.

The DEA agent's name, Anslinger, is a nice inside joke - this is the name of the former drug czar who almost single-handedly made marijuana illegal.Despite this bit of book knowledge, the writers go on to have the farmers harvesting and selling fresh undried leaf, rather than cured buds.Additionally, I always find it amusing that movie makers never seem to be able to find real marijuana plants for filming. You would think there would be a business that would make real looking fake ones for the movie business or maybe they could film a couple of scenes in Amsterdam or Switzerland. I suppose that's asking too much for the budget.Probably the most interesting thing about the film is the attempt to cover the notion of exactly what is right and what is wrong in society and how the law treads that line and yet tries to do justice in spite of it.

I got to see this film because my friend wanted to see Dawson Creek stoned. She got what she wanted, the dude was in the movie for about two scenes he was high as a kite. But the movie isn't about that and it's not a stoner comedy as the ads make it out to be. This actually turned out to be the best movie that friend rented in a while, though that's not saying much. It's a drama about small town farmers who decide to grow marijuana to survive in troubled times. The best part of the film was the storylines involving the farmers themselves and the local Sherriff and DEA agent. Those storylines are realistic and provide interesting motivations and insights about marijuana production and the role of law enforcement. These farmers are not bad people and, while they may be a little naive, they are simply trying to survive when they're only other option would be losing their farms. While the DEA agent offers by the books interpretation of what they do, the Sherriff is conflicted because he knows why they are doing it and he wonders if a big pot bust would be bad for the small town's psyche.The film bogs down with the story of the farmer's son, an innocent and earnest Will Horneff. This isn't a pro-legalization film, if anything the Horneff character is the moral voice of the film. His character is angry about his parents growing weed not because he's afraid of their well-being with the DEA sniffing around, but because he believes it's simply a bad thing to do, even though he hangs around kids who smoke it all the time. His intolerance grows as it get's closer to home. Even though much of the film tries (and succeeds) to be even-handed about the issue, in the end it has a pretty clear anti-weed stance. All the characters who do smoke weed are jerks. The dealers are jerks, even the sexist brother of the cute candy-striper. The only characters involved with it with any redeeming value in the film are the farmers, and of course, they are just doing it to survive. This is somewhat disappointing, whether or not it was a case of the film-makers not havingenough guts to remain neutral or it was the film-makers asserting their point of view. The film is strongest when it is neutral, but the fact that in the end the film isn't neutral doesn't kill it.