Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

Wordiezett So much average

Nessieldwi Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

Kimball Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

rlane1000 Huge Mark Twain fan. In my opinion this is the very best production of Huckleberry Finn. Great choreography, costumes, and sets. It does have a musical element but it doesn't detract from the production but instead complements it. The movie does not have a juvenile feel to it and could be enjoyed by the entire family but with parental discretion as this deeper cultural issues are explored. If you enjoy this movie you should check out Tom Sawyer. It features cast reprisals and is a bit more lighthearted. Enjoy.

clarkx This movie pretty much ruins Twain's masterpiece, but the worst thing in it, and one of the worst performances I've ever seen, is Harvey Korman's so-called "enactment" of The King.Couldn't anyone tell him he was overacting? Did he think he was on the stage or television? And that awful voice he used made it hard to understand what he was saying or singing, not that it was necessarily worth understanding, of course.I thought the 1960 version of HF was disappointing, but this one is pretty sickening.

johnstonjames i've read all of 'Tom Sawyer'(very short book), and half of 'Huck Finn'(way too long, i was too young), so i am pretty familiar with Twain's stories.this adaptation does no justice to the book. although none of the versions have been very good. approaching this as a musical is all wrong. you could sort of get away with it with 'Tom Sawyer' because that is really just a children's book and much lighter. 'Huck Finn' is a serious novel aimed at older readers and, as i recall, was some 500 pages long (which was why i could'nt finish it). being a darker more serious story than 'Sawyer', it weathers being a musical far less.it does'nt help that a couple of the songs really stink either. the movie gets off to a decent start, and the title song 'Freedom' is actually quite good. so are the songs 'Honey Dar'lin' and the excellent 'Rose in a Bible', but pretty much all the rest are sub par. the Harvey Corman number, 'Royalty', is just plain awful. and so is Corman. it's hard to imagine Harvey Corman as giving such a horrible performance, since he is always so talented and funny, and you think he would be just right for this role, but he's not. he over acts so terribly and the song is so bad, it pretty much sinks the movie at that point, and it never recovers.i actually really love the Sherman bros. music for Disney, but outside of Disney they are pretty much a miss. did'nt like 'Chitty Chitty Bang Bang'(that song is obnoxious and Van Dyke is oddly wasted in that bomb), hated 'The Slipper and the Rose'(remember 'protocoligorically correct'? unfortunately i do.) did'nt care for 'Tom Sawyer' either. his music for 'Little Nemo' was cute, but not very memorable. when the Sherman Bros. are good, they hit it right out of the ball park, as with Disney favorites like 'Mary Poppins' and 'One and Only Family Band'. but when the Sherman Bros. miss it's like, PEE YEW, plug your nose. remember the mind bogglingly awful 'Monkey's Uncle' song? but at least 'Monkey' was so bad it was funny.but i'd take the 'Monkey' song over most of this uninspired tripe. i love musicals, usually, but here is a example of "DON'T SING!!!".the cinematography is good, the acting by Jeff East and others is good,especially the actress playing the Widow Douglas. and Paul Winfield is an excellent choice for the character of "nigger" Jim.all in all this was one big "Nonesuch". Arthur P. Jacobs should've stuck to "ape" movies.

ceebeegee A forgotten relic from the early '70s, when shows like "Little House on the Prairie" and "The Waltons" all reflected our yearning for a so-called simpler, less complicated era. This adaptation, while not entirely faithful to the book, captures its essential themes and spirit rather well. There are some technical problems (the lighting always seem to be half in shadow, whether it's night or day!) and its kiddie-friendly tone seems at odds during the Grangerfords/Shepherdsons sequence, wherein we see men being shot and killed right on camera--and it's handled rather lightly. Parents should also be warned that this adaptation does have some strong language--it has not been sanitized, notwithstanding its G rating.In addition, the musical format sits much more uneasily with this movie than with the superior "Tom Sawyer" (from the year before, with many of the same cast members and production staff). However, as oddly as some numbers come off, others are wonderful, such as the clever, dixie-ish "Cairo, Illinois," a duet between Huck and Jim that kicks off their great journey together. The jaunty title song and the lovely anthem "Freedom" also showcase the movie and its themes beautifully--especially during "Freedom"'s reprise, as Huck, the boy/man run away, gazes after Jim making his way downriver. Performances are generally strong--Jeff East could've been a better singer but his performance is so sincere and authentic, you hardly notice. Likewise his bond with Jim (well-portrayed by the late Paul Winfield) comes through nicely, most especially in their final, very moving scene together. Harvey Korman and David Wayne also deliver terrific turns as the King and the Duke, respectively.Cinematography is *gorgeous*--the DP took full advantage of the location shoot, with some beautiful silhouette shots. Although its prequel is far better (you simply cannot top "Tom Sawyer"'s terrific score and thoroughbred cast), Mark Twain's quintessential Great American novel is reasonably well-served here, if not transcendently.