atlasmb This adaptation of the famous tale by Mark Twain starts with a song performed by Roberta Flack. My recommendation is to listen to the song, then not bother watching the rest of the film. It does not take long to realize that the familiar story has been changed odiously and unforgivingly to fit another vision that is nowhere near as quaint and clever as Twain's. The writers have hijacked the famous title, changed the story, sanitized it in a way that recalls the censorship cases of the past, removed the authentic dialect, extracted the charm, and added music. We might ask why.Apparently, to serve their own agenda. Then why not create this other story under another title, rather than usurping Twain's reputation? The result they have achieved with this modified piece is as inauthentic as a Bach fugue with its notes changed. Those who celebrate Twain's writing skills, his peerless wit, and his hard work preserving the native dialects of his time and location will find this to be a shallow (and dishonest) tweaking of Twain's timeless classic.

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.

moonspinner55 Talented filmmaker J. Lee Thompson stages this musical version of Mark Twain's "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" with artificial verve, and nothing in it looks quite right or plays at the appropriate tempo. Stolen from his guardians by his delinquent father, Huckleberry Finn stages his own death and hits the Mississippi River with friend Jim the Slave (why the two don't return to the sisters whom Jim works for is never made clear--both he and Huckleberry would certainly benefit from their generosity). Songwriters Richard and Robert Sherman, who also adapted the screenplay, seemed to lose their way musically once their mentor, Walt Disney, died; here, their songs are like leaden chapter stops in the narrative, not that the actors have much musical range. Teen star Jeff East doesn't even have music in his speaking voice, and he crawls through the picture lethargically, talking through his nose as if he had a cold. Paul Winfield fares better as Jim, though this pictorial, phony journey must have seemed quite a comedown after his "Sounder". Cinematographer László Kovács gets some beautiful shots of the raft on the water, but the limp direction and editing makes nearly all of Kovács' compositions look poorly framed. The color schemes are gloppy, with day scenes appearing as dusk and vice-versa. Director Thompson, who makes the white folks look like doddering scoundrels and the black folks look like grinning simpletons, can't work up a cohesive pace for the picture, and it jostles about from one poor vignette to the next. This was a follow-up by financiers Reader's Digest to 1973's "Tom Sawyer"; as with that film, a TV-version was right on their heels, in this case 1975's "Huckleberry Finn" starring Ron Howard and Donny Most. * from ****

wellsortof I'm back to deliver another commentary after reading the book. Like the book, I couldn't wait for the movie to be done. I thought the ending got smoothed out a little bit, but it was a "musical adaptation" of the story, so if you wanted the mess that was the ending of the book, this isn't the place to look for it.Speaking of which, I'd love to see a musical movie of Big River, which is the 80s musical version of the book. It has fabulous music, and while it also smooths out the ending, the music more than makes up for it. The most enjoyable part of the movie was seeing Harvey Korman's The King. I was secretly hoping that Tim Conway would end up being The Duke, and that would have been awesome. But he was great, as he always was on Carol Burnett and other roles.