Huckleberry Finn, a rambunctious boy adventurer chafing under the bonds of civilization, escapes his humdrum world and his selfish, plotting father by sailing a raft down the Mississippi ... See full summary »
Huckleberry Finn, a rambunctious boy adventurer chafing under the bonds of civilization, escapes his humdrum world and his selfish, plotting father by sailing a raft down the Mississippi River. Accompanying him is Jim, a slave running away from being sold. Together the two strike a bond of friendship that takes them through harrowing events and thrilling adventures. Written by
Jim Beaver <email@example.com>
Ever wonder why Hollywood can't just transfer a book to the screen without taking liberties with the plot? In this case, what was wrong with the way Twain wrote it? It resembles the book somewhat, but the movie works better if you didn't read it.
This was a cover-your-tracks movie so that MGM couldn't be nailed as racists, so some of Twain's book is whitewashed here. The result is a bland, pablum version devoid of tension and told in one tone of voice, without the highs or lows and lacking any suspense where required, for instance when Huck and Jim in hiding witness the tarring and feathering of the King and the Duke.
Having said all that, was there ever any better juvenile actor than Mickey Rooney? A reader mentioned Freddie Bartholemew - anyone ever see Bartholemew sing or dance, or display any charisma? Mickey Rooney is responsible for any success this picture has had. In a similar vein, I always think Walter Connolly is a detriment to any picture in which he appears. This movie would have been better off with nearly anyone else as the King, as he is a shrill, unconvincing actor.
As is, "The Adventures Of Huckleberry Finn" is a good movie which could have been so much better.
1 of 2 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?