Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

Cleveronix A different way of telling a story

Beystiman It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

Brenda The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

dwpollar 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.

Corey Walker I just watched this movie on Turner Classic Movies and I really enjoyed it. I don't know how closely it follows the book, as I haven't read this book, just "Tom Sawyer", but I find the movie to be a great family movie. It was fun watching Huck get out of one scrape just in time to get into another. He was always on the run, along with the Widow Douglas' slave, Jim. It made think back to my boyhood days and honestly, it made my boyhood adventures look dull. The plot hearkens back to a time when life was simple and offered more freedom to boys then today's world does. I'm not sure the movie is entirely realistic, but that's quite all right with me. The acting was well done, the colour quality was great for 1960, and the whole plot flowed quite smoothly. I didn't quite understand the ending, which I won't spoil for you. If you like tales of boyhood adventure from an America the world will never see again, you have to see Huck Finn. And it's got some of the greatest actors of the day in it as well. What more can you ask for.10/10

Kelsey C.A. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, the movie, has been criticized for various reasons. Many believe that in making the movie humorous and enjoyable for audience, it dissolves Mark Twain's message about slavery and twists the plot line of the book. In my opinion, this is a great movie that kept me laughing, crying, and on the edge of my seat. It is true that this movie is very different than the book. For example, in the book, Huck never becomes a cabin boy, and the Kind and the Duke never try to kill Huck. These differences, however, kept me wondering what would happen next. The ending was unpredictable, and that made the movie interesting. Mark Twain's message about the moral injustices of slavery is very prominent in the book, but not so prominent in the movie. This movie, however, was intended for entertainment purposes. If you have read this book, you will enjoy the movie. If you haven't read the book, you will also enjoy the movie, but keep in mind that it is nothing like the book. There has been much controversy about the portrayal of Jim and how it denigrates blacks. I do not agree. Jim is actually very smart, and he has another side that he doesn't let Huck see. For example, Jim knows all along that Huck's father was dead, but he cared about Huck enough to not tell him. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is a great movie. I recommend it to all audiences!

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.