Odelecol Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Quiet Muffin This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

Caryl It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

krdement Like Samuel Clemens, himself, this film is a great illustration of the Art of Exaggeration. The rough outline of Twain's life is retained as a foundation for greater elaboration. The Calaveras County episode is a perfect example. Would it have had the same impact on us if Twain (Fredric March) had been a mere bystander? Absolutely not! We have a stake in its outcome because HE has a stake in it. Would it have been as funny if Twain's partner, Steve Gillis (Alan Hale) hadn't been responsible for filling the opposing frog full of buckshot? No way; Gillis' responsibility involves us. That Twain has bet on the frog of the opponent, Bret Harte (John Carradine), and lost all their money serves the interests of justice. More importantly, however, it is one more example of the ironic failings of Twain's early life. Having Bret Harte be the owner of the opposing frog is pure genius - a clever homage to another great American author, who was Twain's contemporary. He is played with aplomb by John Carradine, a wonderfully versatile performer, whose earlier career as a character actor is sadly overshadowed by his later career as a stereotypical ghoul.As other commentators have noted, March is phenomenal in capturing the legendary Mark Twain. March is one of the greatest actors in American film history. His performance here is typically nuanced, capturing the dry wit of Twain with understated charisma, and also the pathos of the man in his private life. Brilliant!Alexis Smith is wonderful, too. She had the ability to capture loving, devoted women with a realistic warmth that is never over-sentimental. Besides, she is very easy to look at. (At a similar age, Jody Foster bears an uncanny resemblance to Alexis Smith in this movie. The cameo could easily have been of Foster.)The very personification of the Art of Exaggeration is Alan Hale, here portraying Steve Gillis, Twain's sidekick out west. Somehow in roles such as Gillis he is capable of the greatest of acting paradoxes - delivering exaggerated performances that NEVER seem overacted or hammy. His characters always appear natural, yet larger than life. Offhand it is difficult to think of another actor who accomplished this incredible balance. I would watch ANY movie in which Hale appears.Likewise, comedies of this era seem to be able to strike that same balance - natural, yet larger than life. That is what sets them apart. Later films don't seem to be able to capture the same balance. In attempting to do so, actors just come across as hammy. The Art of Exaggeration in American film, got lost some time in the late 40's. What a shame. Movies like this are the quintessence of that fine art.

Daniel Kincaid The first thing to note about "The Adventures of Mark Twain" is that it is by no stretch an accurate biography of Mark Twain. In that sense the film is unfortunate, because no doubt they could have still had an interesting film without the need for blatant inaccuracies.Despite this, I thoroughly enjoyed the film. Fredric March is memorable as a witty and principled Twain. March dominates the movie, but the supporting cast gives notable performances as well. The film has a number of great humorous moments as befits a film about Twain. The problems and conflicts developed in the film, although often fictitious, are engaging.If you are looking for an accurate biography of Mark Twain, avoid this film. However, if you can tolerate the historical liberties, see "The Adventures of Mark Twain" for Fredric March's stellar performance as Twain.

prschwartze In the Adventures of Mark Twain, Frederick March portrays the author as Sam Clemmons himself would approve. This film is the most true to life account of Clemmons life as any film I have seen on the author. It not only lets the viewer see the humorous side of Twain, but shows the desperate and dark sides as well. This is a film that every Twain "buff" should view!

Kent Rasmussen This film is fun; it has some fine performances (I especially like Frederic March's lecture scenes) and a great Max Steiner score. However, a faithful biography of Mark Twain it is not. Apart from the fact that the script twists and distorts events in Mark Twain's life nearly out of recognition, it presents a false portrayal of him as a sentimental sap suffering from arrested development who probably wouldn't have written a word without his wife's persistent prodding.Some examples of egregious distortions of fact:* Mark Twain did not go west to get rich so he could marry Livy Clemens (he never even heard of her until after leaving the West)* his jumping frog story did not alleviate the nation's pains during the Civil War (it wasn't published until after the war ended)* he didn't leave Nevada to fight for the Confederacy when the war started (he went to Nevada partly to get away from the war after it started)* publishing U. S. Grant's memoirs didn't cause his bankruptcy (that publication was a huge success; his bankruptcy came 7 years later)* when he went on his round-the-world lecture tour, he didn't leave his wife behind not knowing she was gravely ill (she and a daughter went with him; her health was fine at that time)* his wife didn't make him promise to go to England to accept an Oxford degree (she died three years before he got the invitation)According a friend of Mark Twain's daughter, Clara Clemens Gabrilowitsch, Clara was not allowed to set foot on the film's sets while it was being made, for fear she would confuse the cast and crew with the truth.For a more detailed dissection of the film, see my book, MARK TWAIN A TO Z, which compares the episodes of the film with the real events in Mark Twain's life. And for a film that presents a more honest portrait of Mark Twain, see the 1985 claymation feature of the same title: THE ADVENTURES OF MARK TWAIN.Meanwhile, there is a simple test you can make while watching the film: Prepare a list of Mark Twain's books in the order in which they were published. As you watch the film, pay attention each scene mentioning a new Mark Twain book, give it a sequential number, and write that number next to the title in your list. When the film is over, compare your numbers to the sequence in which Mark Twain actually wrote the books. If you want to make the test even more fun, try keeping track of the years in which the books appear in the film. What you'll end up with is a hopeless mishmash, leaving you uncertain whether the film follows Mark Twain's life forward or backward.Is it necessary for a film biography to get all all its facts correct? Probably not. But is it excusable for a film get almost all its facts wrong?Trivia note: An early scene shows the bedroom in which Mark Twain was born. Study the size of the room carefully. Then, when the film cuts to an outside view of the house (which looks authentic, by the way), ask yourself if it's physically possible for the bedroom to fit inside that house--even if it's the only room in the house.You can apply the same test to the steamboat in which Mark Twain later appears: Is it possible that the steamboat you see is big enough to contain the gaming room in which Mark Twain first appears?As I said, it's a fun movie in many ways ... but don't make the mistake of thinking that it has much to do with Mark Twain.