Tom and Huck (1995) User Reviews

Hit and miss adaptation of the Mark Twain story

[BadWebDiver · 6/10 · 6 April 2002]

Spoiler warning!

This is a mixed-bag when it comes to story-telling. Some scenes work quite well, others are totally poor. One of the weakest is the famous "engagement" scene. It is thrown away as a totally one-note sentimental piece, and misses the comic potential of the scene. The version of TOM SAWYER starring Johnny Whittaker and Jodie Foster delivered it a lot better.

Brad Renfro does a technically brilliant performance here. He can obviously relate to Huck very well and there is obviously some parallels with his own life. Unfortunately, he doesn't suit Huck as a classic story character, and he certainly doesn't suit the style of the rest of this movie. The effect is like Robert DeNiro doing his TAXI DRIVER role in the middle of a Laurel & Hardy comedy. It takes a lot of skill to make these styles fit together, and it's certainly out of the league of the production of this film.

Jonathan Taylor Thomas is fairly good as Tom. He does the climactic court scene very well, and he is generally charming and mischevious. But he lacks the depth to make the character really come alive. The whitewashing scene is fairly good, though I've seen better.

Not bad, but certainly no classic. The previous film THE ADVENTURES OF HUCK FINN is actually a far better adaptation of a famous Twain novel.

Another Casualty of the Middle School Formula

[Hitchcoc · 6/10 · 4 January 2007]

We all know the story. There have been some pretty good Tom Sawyer movies made. This one capitalizes on star power for an audience that probably has never heard of the principle character. Putting these motives aside, it just doesn't work the best. While Jonathan Taylor Thomas is an adequate Tom, Brad Renfro is not a very good Huck. He is too much of a pretty boy. He is much too bright, though his character tries to make him otherwise. If you've read Twain, you know that he is tremendously superstitious and has really rough edges, both mentally and physically. He is kind of whiny in this movie. Becky Thatcher looks to be about 25 years old and stands next to Tom like a giant. She pushes him around and dominates. Obviously, the director decided to make her an attractive character to young women. That's not bad, but it betrays the spirit of the period in which it was written. They should at least have looked about the same age.

There are good scenes. The graveyard scene is well done. Injun Joe is threatening and murderous. The funeral scene is a disappointment. It needed to be milked a bit. Some of the peripheral characters could have been more developed. The conclusion works OK. However, it needed a dose of truth and believability to carry it through. See it, but don't expect a lot.

Alright film version of Twain's classic, but one of the weaker adaptations

[TheLittleSongbird · 5/10 · 12 October 2013]

There are things that Tom and Huck does do right. The three best things about it are the production values, the score and Eric Schweig as Injun Joe. The film looks very pretty with quite evocative costumes and sets, while the score is both memorable and relaxing. Schweig is perfect as Injun Joe and genuinely menacing, though the writers perhaps go a little overboard with the villainous and somewhat violent side to him. Brad Renfro does do well as Huck, the character does come across as too sullen and hard but Renfro is suitably mischievous and brings some fun amongst bringing out a somewhat conflicted side to Huck. There are some effective scenes, the graveyard scene is very atmospheric and the moment when Injun Joe starts to stir/stirs when Tom is reaching for the map sends chills up the spine. The whitewashing scene is very charming as well.

There are some mixed feelings assets here. Jonathan Taylor Thomas(of whom Tom and Huck is like a vehicle for him early in his career) makes for a spirited Tom but the more dramatic moments(the courtroom scene is quite good though) show signs of inexperience. Peter Hewitt's filmography has been hit and miss, Tom and Huck is one of his better films and thankfully is not another Zoom or Thunderpants but his best film will always be Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey(that and The Borrowers, of the films I've seen so far of his, are the only ones that have ratings better than decent).

Tom and Huck does have its failings though, the worst case was the grossly out-of-kilter way Becky was written, if there is a more selfish and bitchy Becky on any film adaptation of Tom Sawyer it's yet to be seen and Rachael Leigh Cook while attractive does come across as forced and stereotypical-teen-like in her acting. There are some fun moments injected in the more nostalgic and charming moments seen in the first half but the second half, where it's all suspense thriller and Injun Joe on the rampage feels like a different film altogether, the two halves just juxtapose too much. The crucial scenes are there even when the adaptation is quite loose but the heart is lacking. The funeral scene falls flat being very under-characterised and rushed through, and the "engagement" scene came across as overly-sentimental(an attempt by Disney to make the story more timely) and awkward as well. The worst bit of dialogue was Becky's "What? I'm not the first? I hope you die", not only is it a terrible and shallow thing to say in the first place but it is something that Becky would never dream of saying. Much of the dialogue is weak, not just that line from Becky but the whole style is not very nuanced and it feels at times too modern. Little attempt also is made to bringing Missouri's dialect, language and how they speak, the production values did a great job in being evocative, why didn't the writing make an effort too? And this is coming from someone to makes a big effort in judging films/TV series/literary adaptations on their own terms. Other than Huck, Injun Joe and to a lesser extent Tom, the rest of the actors suffer from their characters being underdeveloped and don't register as a result really.

To conclude, Tom and Huck is alright as a film though with many problems but along with the Soviet film(with the bad dubbing, pacing and editing) it is one of the weaker adaptations of a great book. 5/10 Bethany Cox

It looks real, but feels a bit fake

[blackbird1875 · 10 November 2003]

This version of the classic novel by Mark Twain makes a nice little movie, but fails to capture the humorous spirit of the book. Many hilarious scenes are missing and the writers have taken too many liberties with the plot.

Jonathan Taylor Thomas is wonderful as Tom Sawyer. Unfortunately his charm does not last until the very end of the movie, but seems to fade after a while. It might possibly have something to do with the fact, that, even though this movie is based on "The Adventures Of Tom Sawyer", it's actually Huck's character that steals the whole show.

I had a bit of a problem with the way Huck Finn was portrayed in this movie. Of course Brad Renfro is a fantastic actor (his performance is probably the best thing about this film) and he manages to give Huck Finn many tragic and deep aspects. Unfortunately Mark Twain's Huck Finn is neither tragic or very deep. One can only wonder why Huck has been made the brooding hero, when it's actually Tom Sawyer, who is supposed to be the brightest star in this story.

Despite the many sugar-coated scenes and the fact that both Tom and Huck are a bit out-of-character, this movie is still something worth seeing. Injun Joe and Muff Potter are both realistic and Rachael Leigh Cook makes a brilliant and not-so-girly Becky Thatcher! The sets and wardrobe look very authentic, but they alone are not enough to bring the evergreen story wholly alive.

light weight

[SnoopyStyle · 4/10 · 31 March 2016]

Tom Sawyer (Jonathan Taylor Thomas) runs away and is rescued by Huck Finn (Brad Renfro). They see Injun Joe and Muff Potter digging up the grave of Vic 'One-Eyed' Murrell to retrieve a treasure map for Doctor Robinson. Injun Joe murders Doc Robinson with Muff's knife. Muff is arrested for the murder. Tom is torn between an oath to Huck and his need to exonerate an innocent man.

The production looks weak. This Disney doesn't have the needed edge and doesn't even have Disney money. The story has too many killings to be a kiddie movie. The movie doesn't have the grittiness to feel real. Jonathan Taylor Thomas used to be a thing back in the day. He's cute with a twinkle in his eye. I don't lay too much on him. He just doesn't have the toughness unlike Brad Renfro. Rachael Leigh Cook is a cutie in this one. This movie's tone is all over the place.

Visually, Tom and Huck is eye-pleasing

[patathomas · 7/10 · 11 June 2005]

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.

Pretty Lame

[gavin6942 · 5/10 · 4 June 2015]

A mischievous young boy, Tom Sawyer (Jonathan Taylor Thomas),witnesses a murder by the deadly Injun Joe. Tom becomes friends with Huckleberry Finn (Brad Renfro), a boy with no future and no family.

Going through the Top 250 lists from various years, somehow this ended up on the list for 1996. Of all the lists from 1996 through 2014, this first list is the most bizarre. Others have films that clearly do not belong, but none more than the 1996 list. And this is a prime example. How did a film that barely ranks above 5 out of 10 manage to be considered one of the best of all time? Not that this is a bad film. As far as kid stories go, it is alright, and not the worst introduction to the world of Mark Twain. But it is clearly not intended to be a masterpiece, but more like something one might see on the Hallmark channel. Just a showcase for the now-forgotten Jonathan Taylor Thomas.

"We have to admit, there's a little bit of Tom Sawyer in all of us."

[classicsoncall · 6/10 · 25 July 2018]

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.

Classically Prejudice...

[Xstal · 1/10 · 15 October 2020]

It's an awful presentation, the original tale isn't much better - who do these injuns think they are acting as if they own the place. Curious that Mark Twain didn't use someone of white western European descent for his antagonist. Sadly makes this and him a statue that belongs in a museum.

A good movie

[pro-sep735 · 7/10 · 10 December 2011]

The first time that I remember seeing this was at my 5th grade teacher's house. Every since then, I liked it.

Jonathan Taylor Thomas and Brad Renfro are some of my favorite actors of the 90s, and they delivered a clean performance in this film. The girl who played as Becky wasn't half bad either (although at times her selfish and rather stubborn attitude annoyed me). But she did seem to do a better job than Jodie Foster did in the 70s musical version of "Tom Sawyer" (no disrespect).

I've seen several versions of the "Tom Sawyer" and "Huckleberry Finn" stories, and although it's not my favorite version of the story, it is amongst my favorites. All in all, I give it a 7/10.

Quite possibly the worst version of Twain's classic

[StrongRex · 2/10 · 14 July 2018]

Oh, where to begin with this movie. I'll start with some of the good: Eric Schweig was perfectly cast as the murderous, intimidating, menacing Injun Joe. If I could create my own Tom Sawyer classic movie, I'd recast him. Same with Michael McShane as Muff Potter. Jonathan Taylor Thomas sounds like the perfect Tom Sawyer on paper; he does have a history of playing rambunctious, trouble-making boys, and he has a special place in my heart as Simba from The Lion King, my favorite Disney movie. But here...he's just alright. He doesn't have as much of the edge that made Tom Sawyer such a fascinating, dynamic character. Most of the blame for that goes to the writers though; I'm sure Thomas would have done much better had he been given better material to work with. Everyone else was sorely miscast (i.e Huckleberry Finn, Becky Thatcher, Aunt Polly, Widow Douglas, Joe Harper, etc.), and the characters who did have decent casting (Judge Thatcher, Ben Rogers, Mr. Dobbins, etc.) didn't stand out very much.

No attempt was made to create the atmosphere of Tom Sawyer (the dialect, the plot, the setting, the characters, etc.) Every boy, including Tom Sawyer, went barefoot in the book, but in the movie they all wore shoes. This may not seem like a big deal, but it's part of the edge Tom Sawyer and his friends have in the book; they're not afraid to get down and dirty in the adventures they have, and the boys who do wear shoes in the book are looked down upon as sissies.

In the novel, Tom Sawyer gets whooped at least twice. In this version, he doesn't even get it once.

Huckleberry Finn in the books was carefree, laid-back, and is satisfied with his independent lifestyle. Although he is despised by every "respectable" adult in St. Petersburg, he's envied and friends with most of the children, and he doesn't feel sorry for himself. Brad Renfro's Huck is snide, irritable, sarcastic, and even somewhat of a bully, nothing at all like Twain's Huck. This Huck DOES feel sorry for himself, and often takes his frustrations out on Tom.

Becky Thatcher in the book is a bit too demure and puts on airs. But she isn't a bitch. In the book, Tom gets back into her good graces by taking the hit for her (literally) and their relationship grows even stronger in the cave scene. In the movie, she's portrayed as a bitch plain and simple; in fact she holds a continuous grudge against Tom throughout the movie, which makes their bonding in the cave scene really forced. Not to mention that Rachael Leigh Cook as Becky Thatcher is probably the worst case of miscasting in this movie; she was way too old and was a good two heads taller than Jonathan Taylor Thomas.

Disney could have made their own version of Tom Sawyer great, especially with Jonathan Taylor Thomas as the lead. What a wasted, missed opportunity.

Gosh some pretty tough reviewers

[mr_waterfall · 8/10 · 26 December 2017]

It may not be exactly like the book but its really good movie. Jonathan Tayler Thomas really always looked to me as the real Tom Sawyer just something about him as TOm fits it to a T. Got some funny characters and Muff seems realistic to me believeable when hes about to die Injun Joe looks terrifying if was around him like hes some insane killer. The very look of him when hes like stick me i mean if a kid dang id be scared too.

Huck plays his part well makes him believeable there is other tom and sawyers that been out that follow the book this is just follows it some and makes ire ally good i dont know the down hate on it gesh there is real movies that are bad in every line. But this is fun cool and everyone i think fit it i have the movie and i love it.

Enchanted me enormously...

[RosanaBotafogo · 7/10 · 19 November 2022]

Sneaking around the cemetery late at night, mischievous pals Tom Sawyer (Jonathan Taylor Thomas) and Huckleberry Finn (Brad Renfro) secretly view local bully Injun Joe (Eric Schweig) murdering the town's undertaker with his knife. The frightened friends swear never to speak to anyone about what they saw, but, when Tom learns that harmless town drunk Muff Potter (Michael McShane) has been charged with the murder, his conscience forces him to intervene and clear Potter's name.

I never liked the story so much, in fact, it was unknown to me until recently (I barely knew about Lost), however after my trip to Disney I was completely in love with Tom Sawyer Island, the mini Island there is just perfect, a little place that makes you want to live there, so I started to appreciate the work itself, the film is very faithful to the book so I was able to research what enchanted me enormously...

Well, It's a Story of Mark Twain

[Breumaster · 5/10 · 10 April 2020]

The story was ok, but at some point I have to say that it's allday racism of the 18xx against natives. Natives allways have to be the bad counterpart in such a story. Even black people weren't in a fix like natives. So the story might have been good for the times Mark Twain wrote them - and I rely on the studios correctness to not change the story from Mark Twain too much. I also have too admit that I never read any book of Mark Twain. But if the story goes other way, shame on the studio. Both options are bad, so I won't change my mind about my rating. Offside the racism through native stereotypes, it is a nice movie for kids, not more. I wouldn't show it to kids without teaching them about stereotypes against natives.

Good Movie

[adrian2umortal · 26 February 2003]

Disney did good but still this version will never compare to the 1970's musical version. "Tom and Huck for a New Generation" is what this movie should have been called. The storyline stays true to the book but there is a modern day mid 90s feel about the relationship between Tom and Huck. Not unlike the old days when Tom and Huck in other filmed versions would simply drop what they were doing to go and play the ultimate prank on their unsuspecting prey.

Preeeeeeeeeeeeeetty Bad Movie

[PeterPPK · 2/10 · 9 June 2010]

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.

A good introduction to the story

[cricketbat · 6/10 · 31 December 2018]

Tom and Huck isn't a great movie, but it's a good way for kids to be introduced to the characters of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn. Although it may be a bit intense for children under six, since the plot revolves around a murderer and his plot for revenge. And even though this movie is set in the 1840s, it has a strong 90s feel to it. Whatever happened to Jonathan Taylor Thomas?

Strife on the Mississippi

[wes-connors · 5/10 · 8 January 2012]

Nineteenth century Mississippi River boy Jonathan Taylor Thomas (as Tom Sawyer) tries to runaway to New Orleans with his pals, but has to abort the mission with a bloody forehead. As punishment, young Thomas is directed to whitewash a fence, by guardian Amy Wright (as Aunt Polly). Thomas cleverly gets neighborhood lads to finish the job. He shares adventures with rebellious best-friend Brad Reno (as Huckleberry "Huck" Finn) and pretty girl-friend Rachael Leigh Cook (as Becky Thatcher).

While nothing to write Mark Twain about, the Disney studio's follow-up to their "The Adventures of Huck Finn" (1993) is serviceable. Both films would have (and will) be much more appealing to the elementary and primary school set, who will hopefully read the books. Strengths from the earlier version look better with a simpler music score and more appropriate leads. One wishes they had waited on the previous film to release as a sequel to this "Tom and Huck", as the original author intended.

***** Tom and Huck (12/22/95) Peter Hewitt ~ Jonathan Taylor Thomas, Brad Renfro, Eric Schweig, Rachael Leigh Cook

I rate it... mostly thanks to Mr. Thomas

[r96sk · 7/10 · 6 October 2020]

Good enough.

It doesn't come close to Disney's other film from the 1990s featuring Mark Twain's Huckleberry, 'The Adventures of Huck Finn'. In fairness, this one is more about Tom Sawyer than Huck, which is pleasing given they already portrayed Huck just two years prior.

The actor who depicts the latterly named character is Brad Renfro, who isn't all that to be truthful; he's fine, just not memorable at all. Jonathan Taylor Thomas, meanwhile, plays Tom and he is, probably, the best part of this production. He's cheekiness works well for the role. Elsewhere, Eric Schweig (Injun Joe) makes for a decent bad guy.

I like the vibe of 'Tom and Huck', I think it could've done without the love story but that doesn't hamper things much. I would say the film goes at a slower pace than I would prefer, it particularly drags ever so slightly towards the end. Still, I rate it... mostly thanks to Mr. Thomas.

Not great but works on certain levels

[grantss · 5/10 · 19 June 2020]

Tom Sawyer is a mischievous young boy, growing up in a small US town in the mid-1800s. He finds a friend in Huckleberry Finn, a vagrant and outcast, and the two get up to all sorts of boyish adventures. While on one of these adventures they witness a murder, leaving Tom with a dilemma.

Based on Mark Twain's famous novel, this adaptation is hardly definitive. Produced by Disney it's clearly made for kids, with dumbed-down plot development and sub-plots and performances by the leads that are aimed strictly at children. Throw in some pretty hammy acting all round and it appears to not have much going for it.

Yet it has some positives. It's a very harmless, accessible version of the book. If you've never read The Adventures of Tom Sawyer or watched any other version of the novel, it's a quick and painless introduction to the book. It's short and never dull so doesn't feel like a total waste of time. In addition, kids will enjoy it (which is great for Disney, as they are the target audience).

So not a total write-off.

A (much) smaller production from the Disney repertoire that everyone forgot.

[filipemanuelneto · 3/10 · 22 October 2023]

No one can deny the quality and relevance of Mark Twain's work, even those who, like me, were never attracted to his books. Yes, I have never read Twain's books, even though they are available in good translations into my mother tongue. I never felt the desire or curiosity. This film takes advantage of two of its most important characters: Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn, two boys full of personality. However, it's the only thing it takes advantage of, creating an entirely new story for them.

It may not seem like it, but it is a film with Disney's approval. It is a film aimed at a teenage audience, with some maturity, and therefore has some violence and already addresses normal themes among teenagers, such as dating. The story created for the film is good enough for the effect it is, and for the film in question, but it is clear that the studio did not waste a lot of time or spend a lot of money on this production. On a technical level, the film meets the minimum requirements, but does not deliver anything beyond that.

Overall, the film is good enough to entertain us, but it is unlikely to leave a lasting memory in anyone's mind. It is absolutely forgettable, so much so that, nowadays, no one remembers it. Jonathan Taylor Thomas and Brad Renfro are the duo of young actors who lead the cast, and they are really the only ones to deserve a certain type of prominence for the work they have developed. Eric Schweig and Michael McShane do smaller jobs, but they are the most valuable adults. The rest of the cast is an anonymous and indistinct mass like a ballet nucleus, moving and circulating without wanting our attention.

This movie was cute and a good family film.

[jpankla · 8/10 · 19 January 2007]

Director Peter Hewitt captured the essence of friendship in this family friendly film. Set in southern Missouri in the early 1800's, Tom (Jonathon Taylor Thomas) and Huck (Brad Renfro)reunite and have some very interesting adventures together. While trying to get rid of warts in the graveyard, they witness a murder at the hands of Injun Joe (Eric Schweig). They swear an oath not to tell and sign in blood, for fear of Injun Joe coming after them. Tom has doubts about their oath, however, when an innocent man, Tom's friend, is accused of the murder. Tom has to make a very hard decision, friendship or an innocent man's death? In the mix is an ancient treasure and an important map, making this a movie to remember. This is an action-packed adventure kids will love and parents will approve of.

Not terrible but probably not worth your time

[colinrfricke · 4/10 · 4 September 2020]

I remember watching this movie when I was a kid and liking it so I gave it a shot. It wasn't terrible but it probably is better as a kids movie. Story follows Tom, a mischievous boy, and his nomad friend Huck, a teenager, as they witness a murder by Injin Joe (yeah yeah racism, white privledge, oppressive imperialism yada yada yada: get over it it's based on a book from the 1800s). The problem I felt with the story was that there was too much Tom tomfoolery and not enough Joe menacing. The story would move along and get sidetracked by some shenanigans by Tom and Huck. There were a lot of good scenes such as sneaking up on Joe to steal a map and Tom's moral dilemma about telling the truth at a trial to save a man's life and his blood promise with Huck. I felt the climatic scene was kind of blah. Again not terrible but better as a movie for your ten year old nephew.

A Hit-Or-Miss Adaption That Misses Big...

[MovieAddict2016 · 19 December 2002]

Jonathan Taylor Thomas stars as Tom Sawyer, created by literary legend Mark Twain (a writing alias). Brad Renfro plays Huck Finn, the mischievious rebel who gets Tom in trouble.

The story basically goes the same way as the book, and could have been worse. But is also could have been better. Much better.

Decent acting, some boring throw-in scenes that have nothing to do with the story and/or plot, and more flaws such as the preceding.

2.5/5 stars --

John Ulmer

Average 90s film based on Mark Twain's novel

[lisafordeay · 5/10 · 20 January 2024]

Tom and Huck is a 1995 drama starring Jonathan Taylor Thomas,Brad Renfro,Charles Rocket and Rachel Leigh Cook(in her film debut). Directed by Peter Hewitt who is also the same director that gave us Garfield, the story is about Tom Sawyer (Thomas) a mischievous young boy, growing up in a small US town in the mid-1800s, who becomes friends with Huckleberry Finn(Renfro) an outcast, and the two go off on all sorts of adventures.

Things a turn however when they witness a murder and its up to the boys to prove their innocence and clear their name. Will they find out who was the actual killer?.

Overall it was an average flick and I haven't seen it before until now as it was my first viewing of this film. There was another one of these that I watched recently with Elijah Wood,and it was good.

B-