Customer Reviews

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn [VHS]

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

This movie does not follow the book exactly, but how could that take away from the beauty of it? The target audience is a younger crowd, if the movie followed the book exactly I doubt it would entertain as this one does. I love the book, and I love this movie.. Unless you are a nerdy book worm, you should enjoy it too.. Great acting, great color, and great scenery make it a fun movie to watch!

"The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" has been filmed many times over
the years and I believe this version to be the best.

Made in 1960, it stars Eddie Hodges in the title role. This young
boy looks and acts the part to perfection and he is well supported
by a strong cast of well known movie stars some who appear in
cameo type roles. They include:

Tony Randall
Mickey Shaughnessy
Neville Brand
Andy Devine
Sherry Jackson
Buster Keaton
Findlay Currie
John Carradine
Royal Dano

Archie Moore appears as Huck's friend Jim.

The well known story is about Huckleberry Finn, a young boy who
for personal reasons is dissatisfied with his mundane life, so
he sets off with Jim a runaway slave on a trip by raft down the
Mississippi River in search of adventure.

The movie is well constructed and the various characters more
than interesting. This version stands out from the crowd as it
appears to be more complete than the others, containing segments
from the story missing from other film versions.

Good family entertainment.

Eventhough the movie director didn't follow and cover the original story of book in this movie, i think this movie is good because Jim and Huck had free from their previous situation at the end of the movie (Huck got free from civilized society and Jim got free from slavery. Likewise, we can see both movie director and Mark Twain have same purpose because in my opinion, conclusion shows their final messages. Therefore, the conclusion is really important in our life.
Some people doesn't like this movie because the movie skips a lot of important parts of the book. For example, Tom did not show up in the movie. In general, the movie can't show everything within limited time(usually 2 hours length) So, i think the most important thing is to send a message. MAny people also disappointed about the movie Harry Potter but everything depends on your feeling. For me, this movie tells the main ideas from the book and shows great scenery with good actors.
I recommend this movie

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (book) compared to the Movie.

"The Movie Directed by Michael Curtiz 1960 was a well directed movie, but the story line and most of the plot changed when they made the movie. One, I don't blame the movie director for the lack of things that was shown throughout the movie like how they left out the part when Jim and Huck was separated by the current and when Huck stayed in the Grangerfords before Buck gets killed, would not blame this because it just might be due to the boundaries of time. I do, however, blame the script writers for the movie because they not only shortened some parts in the movie, but also they changed many parts in the American Masterpiece. For example Huck did not run away from Pap and all the others the same way he did in the book, also Jim did not get sold because Pap came and wanted $500 from Miss Watson and threatened to take Huck away if he does not get the money by tomorrow, plus Huck and Jim heard news about them from people that were trying to capture him, and there was no Chicken involved in the book, but in the movie it showed that Huck stole a chicken. There was also characters that kind of changed their figure in the movie, for example Jim is a little different, his tone has changed and he looks a bit old for the book's characterization, and the worst character to change was Pap, Huck's dad, his whole appearance kind of changed because what I interpreted him to be was a big, fat, lazy, and dirty scum, but the movie previewed him as a tall and skinny alright looking person. For the overall comparison for Huckleberry Finn I would give it a 6/10 if it was my choice to judge."

e.c. Urbana High School
1st period.

This film is laughably bad, unless you paid for the item in which case you may feel more like crying than laughing. With a few exceptions, including Randall, the acting is horrible. Jim and Huck look more like healthy California actors than a poor, deprived 19th century urchin and slave. Find another version of this story.

This no doubt is a good movie,after all anything Tony Randall plays in is good.For he was a great actor. My question is, Why do they keep putting Mickey Roony's picture on the cover? I have Mickey's "The Adventures Of Huckleberry Finn" It was made between 1938- 1940.At least put Tony Randall's picture on the cover.I was fooled once when I purchased the tv movie by mistake because it had Mickeys Picture on the cover.This was sold by the Sinergy Corp. The label even pealed off and almost ruined my DVD player. So be carefull, don't go by the pictures.Read the movie information before you buy.

truth be told, there has never been a fully satisfactory film adaptation of twains masterpiece, and i doubt there ever could be -- but taken on its own terms this is a charming movie. originally planned as a big-screen musical (i leave it to others to give that particular contorted history, but you can still hear several of the dumped songs in the background score), it finally emerged as a straight telling of the most famous parts (read least controversial) of twains novel. eddie hodges is a credible huck and boxing great archie moore is a surprisingly effective jim, with strong supporting work from tony randall and mickey shaughnessy as the the dauphin and the duke, and (among others) patty mccormack, andy devine, and the too-little-seen buster keaton. like i said, there will never be a perfect screen huck, but this comes as close as any.

Recently I had the pleasure of reading "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn." I agreed with so many others that it was indeed apart of classic American literature. The movie however, is not. The movie does not even go in the same order as the novel. It jumps around and adds completely new scenes that were not apart of the novel. Plus the extra scenes were completely unnecessary. Some of the important scenes not only were out of place, but they were boring and unlike the novel. The character Jim in the novel is not very witty but he is still a good man. He continues to be a good man in the film, but he tricks Huck which is completely un-Jim like. But i must say the young fellow that plays Huck is very convincing. I had pictured Huck much younger in my mind but I feel that the actor did Huck justice in a movie where so much had gone wrong. I understand that movies are hard to base off of a novel and still keep it accurate, but this movie is just so much more far fetched then the novel is. The novel is exciting and keeps you on your toes, while the film is dull and it is if it;ll never end. I feel that the film is a disappointment and in a way it insults Mark Twain wonderful novel of "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn".

Forgt this movie, bring back the old original classic THE ADVENTURES OF TOM SWAYER, I know the racial overtones are outdated but come on, this 2006. I found an old copy, used on VHS and still stands up as the best HUCK and TOM movies. This clasic deserves a DVD release, high calliber acting from the young actors in this forgotten gem.

Can anyone verify if this is the 1939 movie with Mickey Rooney? The reviews and details here are sending a message that the cover is misleading and the actors as described for this dvd is not the 1939 movie.
Amazon was not able to verify which version of the movie is offered. Thanks to anyone who can answer my inquiry.