Marketic It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

Aneesa Wardle The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Jonah Abbott There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

classicsoncall If I had to guess, I'd say I read "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer" about fifty years ago when I was in my teens, most likely a high school literature class assignment. The scene I remember most vividly from the book was the one where Tom gets a bunch of neighborhood boys to whitewash the fence by using a good old brand of reverse psychology. The movie probably could have done a better job of exploring that scenario, as Tom only managed to convince his first victim in a one on one conversation, the rest were implied to be similarly duped by his engaging manner. Can't really fault the picture much for that because there was a lot of ground to cover from the original story.The story is about "Tom and Huck", but Huckleberry Finn (Brad Renfro) seemed almost like an ancillary character in the movie. HIs involvement as an on again/off again friend and sidekick to Tom leaves the character out of the picture for a good portion of the time. Perhaps if the title of the movie were the same as the novel, Huck's frequent disappearances wouldn't have been so noticeable. But they did serve to reinforce the idea that he wasn't going to let Tom down when things really got rough, as in the Injun Joe (Eric Schweig) matter.Barring minor inconsistencies between Mark Twain's written word and this film adaptation, this appears to be a nice, family friendly movie that handles it's dark moments responsibly enough. It's not what one would consider a cinematic masterpiece, even though for a single year way back in 1996 it managed to land a spot on IMDb's Top 250 list. As did a lot of pictures geared to a younger audience, which probably indicates that in it's first couple of years, it was a young adult crowd that brought the site into some prominence before older and more mature viewers came on board. It's actually kind of interesting to see the types of movies that were predominant year by year to the present day. Today, those teen flicks seem to have given way to a host of Bollywood films that hold some sway with modern audiences.

PeterPPK Maybe it's because I read the book before viewing it, or maybe I was over-analyzing it, but I swear this was one of the worst movies I ever saw. I mean it.First of all, why is it called Tom and Huck? After watching the entire movie, I came to the conclusion that the film really should have been titled "Tom and a few other people". Huck rarely has any affect on the story, and his character is always in the shadow of Tom. Anyway, as I mentioned, I had to read this book for school right before also watching the movie,in school. Now, I know what happens in the Mark Twain's classic, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer. I know the plot, the story, the key events, and the settings of the book. However, I don't think that the creators of this movie do. Right off the bat, the movie features an event that never happens in the book. That's a bad sign right there.I also did not like the acting. I suppose Johnathan Thomas was alright as Tom Sawyer, but I did not like the roles of Huck, Injun Joe, or Becky Thatcher. The performances that these actors gave were bland and totally non-believable.The thing I hated the MOST though, was the movie's sheer stupidity. I can not believe how many inexcusable moments there were in the movie. And it's not just the fact that there are parts that aren't from the book. But there are some parts that just do not make any sense, whatsoever. I question sometimes what the writers(not Mark Twain) were thinking when they wrote this. There is a scene in the movie in which Tom is doing stunts on a bridge that's above a small, shallow creek. Becky comes along and PUSHES Tom off the bridge and into the creek! Now, this may not sound bad, until you realize that if his angle of fall was just a tad steeper, he probably would either broken his neck or have been killed. There is another part that absolutely made me grind my gears. There is a scene in the movie in which Tom and Huck need to get the treasure map from Injun Joe, who is sleeping in the forest after drinking a pretty good amount of alcohol. Tom and Huck then realize they need to blend in with the back round, so they cover themselves with mud. Tom starts walking toward Injun Joe, who wakes up and looks straight at Tom, but doesn't see him as if he is the Predator and Tom is fooling his infrared vision with the mud on him. I mean come on! I realize that Injun Joe is supposed to be super drunk, but can you really be drunk enough to not notice the giant piece of mud in front of you that looks suspiciously a lot like a boy? As for the rest of the movie, I can't say it doesn't follow the basic plot of the book; it does. But it seems to be butchered. There are many parts of it which either A) Don't belong there and come later/earlier in the story; B) Never even happen in the book; or C) Are missing.In Conclusion, I give this movie a 2/10. Why a 2 instead of a 1? Well, because the movie did supply me with some good laughs, but sadly, that's all it offers.

schwammy Perhaps it was just that the VHS tape I rented was bad, but try as I might, I was unable to settle down and enjoy Tom and Huck. I was constantly trying to lighten the picture so I could make out what was happening in the murky forest scenes, which frequently were shot at night, without the use of newfangled electric lights, apparently. Even the daytime shots seemed too dark. This may be a function of shooting in the woods, which looked like authentic Missouri woods, although I live in Missouri and I have never seen a tarantula. Neither, apparently, had Mark Twain, because he spends quite a bit of time expounding on these novel arachnids in a chapter of "Roughing It" that takes place in the Nevada desert. But I digress.It seems that the filmmakers sought authentic locations, which meant having to do without sunlight for the entire film, and got authentic costumes without bothering to teach the actors authentic Missouri accents. The film had a grubby, depressing look to it that failed to capture my five-year-old's attention, although the remarkable amount of profanity in this "kids' movie" seemed to pique her interest momentarily, or perhaps secondarily. I think marketing Tom Sawyer to children, particularly the children of today, is an uphill battle without adding in a cute animated sidekick or some other Disney cliché. Twain's book was intended to be a nostalgic look back at childhood for adults, not children. It seems that the same thing happened with this film, which appears to have been written and shot for adults, and then marketed at unuspecting children.

patathomas Visually, Tom and Huck is eye-pleasing, and Jonathan Taylor Thomas and Brad Renfro make a good pair as Tom and Huck. Other cast members fit their parts. That the film did not strictly follow Mark Twain is no problem if you let the film story stand on its own. It is entertaining just for what it is.Tom and Huck is an interesting enough film, but the transformation of Eric Schweig in his portrayal of Injun Joe compared to his characterization of Uncas in The Last of the Mohicans, is the most fascinating thing about it. In the body of his films, he seems to be able to alternate between utterly noble and utterly disgusting (e.g., Missing). Great acting.