Popular reviews

• 

  Review by Robert Hayes ★★★

  This is from the same guy who made Casablanca?

• 

  Review by vhs_vampire ★★½

  Tony Randall goes hard.

• 

  Review by Nuno Costa ★★

  Viewed on TCM

  Chain Reaction Challenge #49

  I have never read Mark Twain's classic novel nor have I seen a film adaptation of his novel until this one.

  The Adventures Of Huckleberry Finn (1960), as I've learned pretty quickly after seeing the film, is not a great adaptation of the source novel.

  The story is out of order, I'm told. This is surprising considering the film is directed by legendary filmmaker Michael Curtiz.

  As a film, I can't say I really enjoyed it.
  I found virtually every character unlikable, nor did I care for the story.

• 

  Review by Luke Thorne ★★

  Michael Curtiz’s adaptation of Mark Twain’s novel about the friendship between an explorer and a slave. Starring Eddie Hodges, Archie Moore, Tony Randall, Neville Brand and Patty McCormack.

  This is the third sound film adaptation of Mark Twain’s novel, which was first published in 1884, as well as being the second for the studio Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM), but the first to be done in technicolour.

  But the final product here results in an unsatisfactory effort.

  The story concerns young traveller Huckleberry Finn (Eddie Hodges) who desires for some enthusiasm in his life. After his bibulous father (Neville Brand) abducts him, Huckleberry replicas his individual demise and gets away on a raft with Jim (Archie Moore), a slave fugitive from his boss.…

• 

  Review by Rivendweller ★★★

  Just want to make a note of Tony Randall's accent(s) and the way he says "Marie Antoinette"

• 

  Review by Jumpingfrog ★★½

  Proving once again that Mark Twain's masterpiece is basically unfilmable. This film version is a lavish production from MGM with direction from Michael Curtiz, but although it looks good is a generally unsatisfactory experience. The actors playing Huck and Jim don't share much chemistry, but some of the supporting players in the highly episodic story are enjoyable. Twain himself was never good at plot, it's his language that counts, sadly the film doesn't really capture this either. Much in the movie has been left out (some should have been, the feud sequence here is a total waste of time) and a circus sequence has been added (as this features Buster Keaton as a lion tamer I can forgive it!) There's…

• 

  Review by Adam_Zanzie ★★

  Second viewing.

  I don’t like this version at all. Curtiz was the wrong director for it, and it lacks a vision — a reason for existing. The acting is pretty bad. The scenes from the novel are placed out of order and Twain must have been spinning in his grave.

• 

  Review by PacificNil ★★★½

  "Abenteuer am Mississippi" verfilmt "Die Abenteuer des Huckleberry Finn" (Mark Twain 1884) und bleibt recht werkgetreu, trifft aber die Stimmung und die Ernsthaftigkeit des Romans nicht. Die ständige Bedrohung durch rassistische Gesetze und Sklavenjäger ist kaum spürbar. Die Beziehung von Huckleberry Finn zu Jim, einem Schwarzen, den der Junge langsam als Menschen wahrzunehmen lernt, wird immerhin warmherzig inszeniert - und mit zahlreichen Songeinlagen eines nicht realisierten Musicals garniert.

• 

  Review by Joaquin Gamboa ★

  So today I started the year by watching The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.
  The main reason I got this movie was because I thought it was the one with Mickey Rooney, wrong!!!! This is the 1960 version of the story, Rooney's was made in the 30's I believe, anyways this version is a no go, lol, seriously I like to be nice to movie creators because I know how much it takes to create art but this film lacked in a lot of areas, mainly the acting, I couldn't believe most of what they said, and the guy playing Jim the slave was a boxer by the name of Archie Moore, I think he was trying to break into the…

• 

  Review by eightandahalf ★★

  This late stage Michael Curtiz adaptation of Mark Twain's novel is an oddity. I cannot fault Michael Curtiz's craftsmanship. In terms of visual technique, this is decently put together. The jumbled, disorganized script is the principal issue. But at the same time, this feels like MGM were trying to adapt Twain on the cheap with loads of character actors (Harry Dean Stanton, Royal Dano, Sterling Holloway, John Carradine) making appearances and yeah for some reason Buster Keaton.

• 

  Review by calebtboyd ★★

  This review may contain spoilers. I can handle the truth.

  This is the worst adaptation of the novel I've seen so far. The first 45 minutes if faithful to the book, but then there are episodes with Huck as a cabin boy and then as a circus lion tamer. -- To be fair, I did read that Twain had considered writing a novel with Huck as a cabin boy.
  The Duke and the King return for these novel episodes, which I don't think help the story at all. I particularly didn't like all the "ooga booga" talk during the "Emperor of Patagonia" show.
  Other interesting alterations to Twain's story are made, but they are not to the film's benefit. Jim actually does reach the North and Huck decides to continue South on a steamboat. This film, like several other adaptations, ignores discussing whether slavery is right or wrong. Huck Finn never considers it. He and Jim never have that sort of discussion.

• 

  Review by Jeff Brandmeyer ★★★

  Not a great film, but with enough nice touches to slightly recommend it: Tony Randall chewing up the scenery; Buster Keaton as a morose (what else?) lion tamer; Patty McCormack of The Bad Seed as a slightly-less devious-than-Rhoda teenager; Andy Devine and Sterling Holloway in brief-but-memorable cameos. All from the director of Casablanca.

  Note for high-school students: don't use this film as a substitute for reading the novel, because it shares very little detail with Twain's book (except, of course, for the morose lion tamer)!