The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
From chicken thief to cabin boy, riverboat pilot to circus performer, Huck Finn outsmarts everyone on his way down the muddy Mississippi.
-
- Cast:
- Tony Randall , Archie Moore , Eddie Hodges , Patty McCormack , Neville Brand , Mickey Shaughnessy , Judy Canova
Similar titles
Reviews
Truly the worst movie I've ever seen in a theater
Boring
This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.
This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.
1st watched 1/27/2010 - 7 out of 10 (Dir-Michael Curtiz): Charming adaptation of Mark Twain's novel is fun and well played for the most part. The story revolves around an upstart boy of the title who has an alcoholic father and overly religious aunt that brings him to a point of faking his own death in order to escape and debark on an adventure to New Orleans by way of the Mississippi River. He brings along a slave named Jim and they meet up with various characters with Huck always playing himself out of messes by pretending and making up stories. Eddie Hodges as Huck and Archie Moore as Jim make up a good team as the pair who really need each other. Jim was blamed for Huck's death so his goal is to escape North into Illinois so he can be a free man as well escaping the law. Huck is just avoiding his sad life in hopes for an adventure. He actually makes the adventures happen as he goes along including an escapade with a couple of crooks posing as the King of France and a Duke. Huck is a pretty smart cookie, though, and knows when to escape from them but they come back later in the story to try and turn Jim into the authorities for the ransom money. Tony Curtis plays the King and is supposedly the star of the movie but doesn't really add much to the movie by his performance -- the real stars are the actors in the main characters already mentioned. When the movie ends, you want to carry on with the characters to see what happens to them next and this shows the true wealth of the story. I don't ever think Twain make a Huck 2 though, which is a shame.
Although the movie was mildly entertaining, it is a very poor representation of Mark Twain’s book on which this movie is “based.” Crucial character elements are either weakly represented or altogether missing from the movie. In the book, Huck Finn, a young boy, and Jim, a runaway slave, travel far down the Mississippi River from their starting point in Missouri. In this movie, they only get a mile or two past Illinois. The book portrays Jim as a kind-hearted, loving person who wants freedom for himself and his family. In this movie, he is seen as a simpleton and gives the impression that the entire story is racist. Although the movie may not show it, Twain was an abolitionist. In the book, Huck overcomes the prejudices of his upbringing and helps Jim to become free, even if Huck must go to hell for doing so.Eddie Hodges and Archie Moore performed decently in this movie from a pure entertainment point of view, but neither of their characters showed the elements which Train created in them. Michael Curtiz and James Lee allowed elements of Twain’s book to be reorganized or left out altogether. They even created two scenes which never existed even in part in the book. If you don not mind mediocre acting, by all means go ahead and watch this movie, but do not think for one second that it reflects accurately the image or message which Twain created in his book.
Michael Curtiz should have been thoroughly ashamed of himself when he was finished with this production. I can understand why directors will shorten or paraphrase certain adaptations from well-known literature, but to make wholesale changes in an American masterpiece is unforgivable. Huge and important parts of the novel were totally absent, or switched around and added to other parts of the movie that made it incomprehensible. Eddie Hodges (and Archie Moore) were terrible choices for the two main characters. Aside from never coming even close to a realistic dialect from that time and locale, neither actor were truly up to the task. There were some bright spots, though - notably Mickey Shaughnessy and Tony Randall (but even these were wasted.) Overall, a very poor effort and a waste of any true film buff's time. It leaves a very bad taste in one's mouth. Twain deserves better. If you want to see a better version, check out the 1939 version with Mickey Rooney.
I had the pleasure of watching the final scene of this film being shot back in 1959. I was six years old and witnessing this began my lifelong love for the movies. When the film arrived in our city, I was struck by Jerome Morross' incredible music score, which completely captured the sense of adventure, wonder and beauty of life on the Mississippi River and rural Missouri. The film itself is robust, dramatic and filled with Mark Twain's colorful, classic words. The cast is perfect and Michael Curtiz' direction keeps the action flowing. This is a wonderful film for all ages.