The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1960)

Adaptation-wise, die-hard fans of the book will find plenty of fault. On its own this film is not bad at all, actually from this viewer's perspective it was decent. Of the 5 Huckleberry Finn adaptations on film that I've seen it is around the middle, with the 1938 Mickey Rooney film being the best and the 1975 Ron Howard film(the only one of the 5 that was anywhere close to bad) being the worst. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn(1970) could have been better. Eddie Hodges was a little weak and somewhat too prim for Huck and while there are some tense, heart-warming and moving moments the storytelling could have been much stronger. The additions and some omissions didn't always make the narrative cohesive(for example much more could have been done with the ending)- though the Ron Howard does a much worse job at this- and because the grimmer parts of the book are trimmed down or diluted there are times, not always mind, where things did come across as a little on the "cute" side. The adaptation is beautifully filmed though with evocative and quite charming locations and river settings(where the photography was at its most striking). The music score is rousing, foreboding and poignant at all the times it's called for and it is placed appropriately, while the scripting is colourful and generally makes an effort to capture the spirit of Mark Twain's own writing and while not all the storytelling is as good as it could've been it is difficult not to be moved by Jim's talking of his deaf child(something that anybody would identify with). The acting is good generally. Archie Moore is just great and very dignified as Jim(his chemistry with Hodges just about convinces), while Neville Brand is a brutish Pap, Mickey Shaughnessy is appropriately oafish with an ability to be menacing and humorous and Tony Randall's King is superbly conniving. Buster Keaton and Andy Devine also make lively appearances in one of the more delightful and chemistry-strong scenes of the film. All in all, a decent film but "purists" may want to look elsewhere. 7/10 Bethany Cox

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.

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.