Redundant and unnecessary.

Fresh and Exciting

Expected more

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

This is one of a number of film adaptations of Mark Twain's classic novel of the same title. I haven't seen any others to compare. Although Eddie Hodges, as Huck Finn, and Archie Moore, as African American slave Jim, are the principle characters, I vote for Tony Randall as giving the stand out acting performance, as con man the 'King', along with his accomplice Mickey Shaughnessy, as the 'Duke'........In general, I found it an entertaining experience. Neville Brand plays Huck's scary ne'er do well alcoholic father, Papy, who is always criticizing Huck. He even accuses Huck of murdering his mother, since she died in childbirth. Jose Hutchinson plays the widow Douglas, who takes Huck in, being essentially an orphan. Jim, slave to the widow, runs away after he heard that she was planning on selling him to raise money to meet Papy's demand for not taking Huck way. Jim is also accused of probably murdering Huck, in Huck's staged suggestion that he had been attacked and thrown in the river. These two runaways meet and steal a raft to float down the Mississippi.......I have several reality issues to discuss. Jim's stated goal is to float down to Cairo, Illinois, a free state, and head north. But, Hannibal , Missouri, where he started from, is well north of Cairo. So, why couldn't he simply raft over to the Illinois side of the river and claim freedom?? 2)Jim recognizes the corpse in the derelict house boat they run into as being that of Papy, and refuses to allow Huck to see in that room. How did Papy's corpse wind up there? He lived in a shack. 3)Why are the King and the Duke on the steamboat that picked up Huck and Jim? They were arrested by the sheriff and presumably put in jail, unless they simply paid a fine for impersonating, with the intent of robbing an inheritance. See it In color at YouTube

Adaptation-wise, die-hard fans of the book will find plenty of fault. On its own this film is not bad at all, actually from this viewer's perspective it was decent. Of the 5 Huckleberry Finn adaptations on film that I've seen it is around the middle, with the 1938 Mickey Rooney film being the best and the 1975 Ron Howard film(the only one of the 5 that was anywhere close to bad) being the worst. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn(1970) could have been better. Eddie Hodges was a little weak and somewhat too prim for Huck and while there are some tense, heart-warming and moving moments the storytelling could have been much stronger. The additions and some omissions didn't always make the narrative cohesive(for example much more could have been done with the ending)- though the Ron Howard does a much worse job at this- and because the grimmer parts of the book are trimmed down or diluted there are times, not always mind, where things did come across as a little on the "cute" side. The adaptation is beautifully filmed though with evocative and quite charming locations and river settings(where the photography was at its most striking). The music score is rousing, foreboding and poignant at all the times it's called for and it is placed appropriately, while the scripting is colourful and generally makes an effort to capture the spirit of Mark Twain's own writing and while not all the storytelling is as good as it could've been it is difficult not to be moved by Jim's talking of his deaf child(something that anybody would identify with). The acting is good generally. Archie Moore is just great and very dignified as Jim(his chemistry with Hodges just about convinces), while Neville Brand is a brutish Pap, Mickey Shaughnessy is appropriately oafish with an ability to be menacing and humorous and Tony Randall's King is superbly conniving. Buster Keaton and Andy Devine also make lively appearances in one of the more delightful and chemistry-strong scenes of the film. All in all, a decent film but "purists" may want to look elsewhere. 7/10 Bethany Cox

68/100. Although it takes quite a few liberties with the Mark Twain novel, the appearances of many well known guest stars and an exceptional quality in its production make it a very entertaining movie. It appears they were trying to make it more of a movie geared more towards family viewing. Fine cinematography and art direction. I was never bored, it wisely is not too long. Eddie Hodges is a little weak as Huckleberry Finn, and since it is such a pivotal role, that does hurt the effectiveness of the film somewhat. Tony Randall is very good, Buster Keaton has a nice bit as well, as does Andy Devine, Sterling Holloway and Neville Brand.

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.