The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1960)

Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Great Film overall

Absolutely the worst movie.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

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.

Mississippi River rafting with Eddie Hodges (as Huck) and Archie Moore (as Jim) impersonating Mark Twain's pair of runaway drifters. Despite the obvious attempt to be a classy production, with a well-intentioned assemblage of cast and crew, this version sinks like a pebble (if not a stone). It's overcast and miscast, but occasionally satisfying. Lucky young Hodges, who sang with Frank Sinatra, has a great scene with Andy Devine and Buster Keaton. Apparently, 20th century filmmakers were too shy to truly transfer all "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" to film. What they hinted at (or left out completely) can be found by reading the book - or, if you're lazy, listen to a vocal version of "Moon River". We're after the same rainbow's end.***** The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (6/17/60) Michael Curtiz ~ Eddie Hodges, Archie Moore, Tony Randall

Purists of Mark Twain will find fault with this adaption of Huckleberry Finn, but I like it and I think it captures the charm of Twain and the moral lessons he was trying to teach.Small town America, it's strengths and weaknesses is a subject done to death in novels, plays and film. I myself just did a review of This Boy's Life which has some of the same themes as Huckleberry Finn. Hannibal, Missouri of the 19th century sure had more charm than Concrete, Washington of the 20th century. Yet Eddie Hodges as Huck Finn had to leave it to fulfill his destiny as surely as Leonard DiCaprio had to leave Concrete.In fact the most riveting performance in this film is Neville Brand as Huck Finn's Pap. He's as bigoted and narrow-minded, though more explicitly racist than Robert DeNiro in This Boy's Life. Today we would call someone like Neville Brand, trailer park trash.Because the two are on screen for nearly the whole time, the players essaying the parts of Huck and Jim have to be good and have good chemistry. Archie Moore who was the reigning Light Heavyweight Champion when this was made delivers a great performance as the runaway slave Jim. As does Eddie Hodges as Huck. One theme of Twain's that remains intact is Huck's growth as a human being after being thrown together with Jim who he now sees as a person instead of property. In fact MGM put together an excellent supporting cast for tyro players Eddie Hodges and Archie Moore. Tony Randall and Mickey Shaughnessy as con men King and Duke are a joy to watch. The whole movie is.

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.