mark.waltz I usually watch modern versions of classic tales with great trepidation, having discovered that the simplicity of great books and old movies is destroyed by a total lack of charm and too much phoniness through the overabundance of computer generated animation. The casting too is usually based upon whoever is hot at the time, regardless if they are right for the part or not. In the case of this modern version of two Mark Twain classics, it has a lot going for it, sharing the joy of classic literature from the moment that Tom Sawyer makes his first appearance, showing joy at the sight of the Mississippi river. So it's not perfect, but I wasn't expecting anything to improve on the 1930 version starring Jackie Cooper or the technicolor version starring Tommy Kelly.As Tom, Joel Courtney is an absolute charmer, completely in tune with the character, and totally perfect in the time period. Jake T. Austin tries too hard to be "the cool kid", often rapping his lines, which is out of place with the classic Americana feel. But he's perfect in comparison to Katherine McNamara as Becky Thatcher who seems like she should be in "High School Musical" (actually college musical) than the mid-late 1800's. The supporting cast isn't perfect as an ensemble, with the male school master extremely effeminate, a rather cool Aunt Polly, and famous characters not at all giving off a Midwest feel. But the music score is excellent, the photography breathtaking and the presentation of already familiar adventures really exciting. With modern sensibilities, this could be a great way to interest young audiences in classic literature. If only they had realized with all the recent Grimm Fairy Tale ripoffs and the two "Alice in Wonderland" tales that less is more. If this shows anything important, it's the value of friendship and the adventures one can find as a kid, no electricity or batteries needed.

clarascloset-36621 It is tragically unfortunate that the casting director, director, producer, executive producers and quite possibly the actors themselves have not read the book! I wonder why anyone would think it would be okay to take an American Classic, create a screenplay for it and disregard the author's purpose? Mark Twain had a very specific message. Hmmm, creative license only works when you are being creative. The book was about the unlikely friendship between a white boy and a black boy during that era. Too bad because the action sequences and the way the narrative was portrayed could have worked, and been recognized by the industry and the public as fantastic. Kudos for placing a great character actor, Val Kilmer as the older Tom Sawyer.

jramza-1 The positives: 1. Another fine performance from the boy who plays in Super 8. 2. Great soundtrack. Really. It doesn't seem to fit this film. The negatives: 1. Poor screenplay. Dialogue tries to be faithful to time period but comes off very odd and wooden/ artificial. 2. Poor casting. Outside of the main character of Tom, every other actor seems destined to play in B movies. 3. Poor editing. No doubt due to (1) above, but the editing was choppy, in large part due to a choppy storyline / script. 4. Poorly synced voice overs (see #5). 5. Poor casting. The teacher has a jarringly odd, non-Midwestern accent (German?) which simply pulls the viewer out of the movie. Becky is a fine actress but is just not well cast to this Tom. The judge clearly never voices a single line; everything is (poorly) dubbed for this Bulgarian actor. 6. Dialogue tried to be faithful to the time period but failed. Toward the end, I believe Tom even says "fudge" for "fu--." Dialogue /scripting was just very artificial. 7. Storyline was methodical but never natural. Things "happened." But it never flowed. 8. Some scenes of the Mississippi were shot on 16 mm (or poorer quality film stock) and inserted into the movie, but they don't integrate well. 9. Narratives of Mark Twain (Val Kilmer) interrupt the story, and, while they introduce a novel concept to the storyline, simply feel odd/off to story progression. In short, this really felt like a C movie (not even a B movie) in caliber, due to uneven production value.

authorcamilson-499-156858 I have always liked a good Mark Twain story, and even moreso, the adventures of "Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer" (1979 - ). I remember watching the TV series in 1980, before I would make the 15 mile hike to school through treacherous backwoods, through alligator infested swamps… nah just kidding :) I did walk to school which was about 5 minutes walk, but in those days when I was young, I would re-enact some adventures in my mind and imagine I was there with the lads, having adventures of my own.So when I came across this pearl, I naturally got excited as a child at a free "all you can eat" candy shop. :)The film opens with Mark Twain (Val Kilmer) recounting a story to his grand-kids, and hence the adventure of Huck and Tom continue. In this installment of the much loved tale, Tom and Huck find themselves in a graveyard at midnight, and there they witness Injun Joe (Kaloian Vodenicharov) carry out a murder. Fearing for their own safety, Tom and Huck make a vow of secrecy to never tell a sole. However, that is easier said than done when Muff Potter is the scapegoat and framed for murder. The boys take it upon themselves to clear Potter's good name by any means necessary, even if it means putting themselves in the firing line if Injun Joe.Needless to say, the boys get themselves into all kinds of misadventures in this film, and show that boys will be boys in a time when it was all cool to run around town with no shoes, and sleep out in the woods :)A couple of memorable scenes is when Tom (Joel Courtney) has to paint the picket fence, then he easily cons a few other boys to paint it for him, for a price (nicely done Tom); And in a later scene, when he gets "engaged" to Becky (Katherine McNamara), then makes the reference of when he was engaged to another girl :) (Becky didn't take that too well)The acting by Jake T. Austin (as Huck Finn), and Joel Courtney is wonderful in this adaptation of Mark Twain's novel.I would have given this film a higher score, but I did feel that the casting choice for the role of Injun Joe was not as good as what it could have been, if they would have given the role to a native American to preserve the authenticity of the character.