Karry Best movie of this year hands down!

Steineded How sad is this?

Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Bob 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.

weezeralfalfa 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

A M 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.

pasojabber 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.

Richard Maurer (ram-30) From the man who directed "Casablanca" and "Yankee Doodle Dandy" comes a colourful, humorous video version of Mark Twain's timeless novel. The casting is superb. It's hard to think of any other actors from the early 1960s in these roles, they are so well chosen. Especially impressive is pro boxer Archie Moore as Jim. His scene where he's talking about his deaf child is heart-wrenching, quite a feat for a cross over athlete. The child actor who plays Huck is very good as well. My honourable mention goes to Tony Randall and Mickey Shaughnessy who make a great comedy team as the King and the Duke. They are simply hilarious. Although many of Twain's adventures are deleted, most of the better known and interesting characters and scenes are included. Many of these characters are played by Hollywood legends like Sterling Holloway(the voice of Winnie the Pooh and Jiminy Cricket), Judy Canova, John Carradine, Neville Brand, and Buster Keaton. All in all, a highly recommended family film.