User Reviews

Ernest Hemingway once said that all American literature began with "Huckleberry Finn." A bit of an exaggeration from Papa, but there was certainly nothing like "Huckleberry Finn" before it came along. Twain's novel was uniquely uncompromising. At the very beginning, Huck's father shakes a jug of booze and, when asked if there's anything left in it, replies that there ought to be enough left for one more case of the DTs.

It's hard to imagine that this was ever a popular children's story, although all adults seem convinced that it is -- or was. More likely it's a keen projection of grown-up escape fantasies. "They're trying' to civilize me again, Jim. Let's go!" I haven't read the novel in years but this is about as close an adaptation as we're likely to see. The novel, the film, and the hero are utterly bereft of sentimentality. The story spares no one and no ideology. The irony -- Huck is the naive narrator with no sense of humor -- cuts into everything and leaves it bleeding, from slavery to abolitionists -- Evangelical Christians, European royalty, bourgeois values, rustic simplicity, the fine arts, populism, the traps of tradition.

The funniest episode in the film involves Richard Kiley as the sanctimonious and brain-dead head of the middle-class Grangerford family, involved in a feud with the Shepherdsons. Kiley's performance is priceless. After saying grace at the family table, he dabs at his nose and sniffs as he presents Huck with some examples of his dear, departed daughter's crayon art works. The first is a dreadful child's drawing called something like, "The Weeping Willow and Me, Alas." The other is the last work of poor Emiline's, a wretched sketch of a woman flying on wings. Huck asks: "It's very nice, sir, but why does the lady have six arms?" On the verge of breaking down, Kiley replies: "Dear Emiline tried them all to see which pair looked best but she was taken from us before she could decide." I simply can't see a twelve-year-old kid finding that as funny as I do.

Nice set design, location shooting, acting, and adherence to the source have turned this often soppy story into a well executed TV movie. It was shown in 1985, so Jim remains "Nigger Jim" instead of "###### Jim." It wasn't until 1995 that Detective Fuhrman in the O. J. Simpson trial made the N word unspeakable outside the proper social borders. But I'm glad because if anything would completely wreck a satire like "Huckleberry Finn", it's political correctness. It would lose half its impact. Mrs. Loftus wouldn't be able to tell that Huck was a boy disguised as a girl because of the way he claps his legs together (instead of spreading them) to catch a fruit in his lap.

Twain left off writing the novel for some time before taking it up again, and it shows because the last fifth or so doesn't quite jibe with the unsparing beginning. And the truth is that the story really is episodic, Huck and Jim having one adventure after another on their trip down the Mississippi. There is, however, at least two important features that maintain continuity. One is the relationship between Huck and Jim, and the other is Huck's rebellion against the corrupting effects of what he calls "civilization", and the film takes care of both of these questions in a more or less satisfying way.

One of the Grangerford sons, a boy of about Huck's age, tells him that the Grangerfords and the Shepherdsons are in a feud, and when Huck asks what a "feud" is, the other boy explains it this way. One man kills another. Then the brother of the dead man kills the first man. Then the cousins chip in, and pretty soon all the relatives are killing one another. And then when they're all dead and nobody is left, the feud is over. You know something? Maybe it's not just children that won't get the irony. I can think of some adults who might profit from a scrutiny of the moral message.

I've seen most live-action film adaptations of Mark Twain's classic novel, but none follow the original story as closely as this one. The 1993 Disney version is a very good one, but definitely Disney-fied (more suitable for children and whatnot). This version is blunt and accurate. The casting was very good in my opinion. I found that it did move a bit slow at some parts and some scenes were added that were not in the book. The only scenes that were removed were the conversation Jim and Huck have about Frenchmen, the Boggs shooting, and all of the Wilks scenes. That, to me, is very strange. Although I did read somewhere that the full film is 240 minutes, and the one I have is 213 minutes, but says to be un-cut. They do go to Phelps Landing at the end, however, although Tom and Huck's elaborate escape plan for Jim is very much shortened - from over 3 weeks in the novel to 1 day in the film. The beginning is also changed slightly. Pap does not spend a night at the judge's house and does not break his arm. Overall, I really liked it and I think all Huck Finn-enthusiasts would.

This is probably the best version of Mark Twain's "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" I have ever seen or am likely to see. No other manages to capture the richness of the work like this one.

The great thing about this rendition is that it keeps Twain's language almost verbatim, thus allowing some of the wittiest, funniest, and most fascinating conversations in literature to spill forth from on screen. Another asset is its length. At 240 minutes, the story can take its time and characters are able to develop gradually and naturally. This expansive running time also lets viewers steep themselves in the atmosphere of the antebellum era, which is so strikingly recreated. There is a kind of rough and grungy realism in the depiction of folk on the river and the small and sometimes lazy towns they inhabit.

As Huck, Patrick Day never descends into the cutesiness that Elijah Wood did in his far more sanitized portrayal in 1993. Day's Huck is an unapologetic smoker, drinker, and vulgar waif; not once does the audience seem to be manipulated into thinking he is a more endearing character than he actually is. Yet the audience does indeed become endeared to Huck, for the young Day successfully bares Huck's soul throughout the film. In this way, the title character comes off not as some vague and romanticized distortion of himself, but as the nuanced and well-developed creation – raw, imperfect, and human – Twain originally intended.

In this film, Huck's character arc is left blessedly intact. He may be fleeing from civilization and society, but nevertheless some of society's values rub off on him. All his life, he has been trained (by both the respectable Widow Douglas and by his repugnant Pap) that slavery is just, blacks are subhuman, that abolitionism is a moral evil. Getting to know and understand Jim calls into question everything Huck has ever learned. As a result, he endures a terrible struggle with his conscience as he helps Jim to freedom. Within Huck is the desire to do the right thing. But what is he to do when what he has been always told is right conflicts with his experiences with Jim? Many screen adaptations try to dull or dumb down Huck's ethical dilemma. Not this one. Here, the crucial scene is included where Huck consigns himself to hellfire and resolves to liberate Jim from bondage. Patrick Day's plain, earnest performance is riveting. When, choking back tears, he says, "Alright, then, I'll go to hell", it really seems as though he means it, as though he can see the dreadful flames before his glistening eyes. Can you imagine it – condemning your own soul to damnation (for Huck is convinced that is exactly what he is doing in choosing to help Jim get away) in order to save someone who has become your friend? It is the ultimate sacrifice, and one of the most potent and stinging commentaries on bigotry and religious hypocrisy there has ever been.

The sturdy Samm-Art Williams makes a fine Jim, powerfully expressing the humanity of his character. His delivery of the anguished story Jim tells of how he became enraged at his daughter for not listening to him, only to discover to his horror and shame that she was a deaf-mute and therefore incapable of hearing him, is heartbreaking.

The rest of the cast is equally excellent. One by one, they flare life into all the housewives, clergymen, drunkards, shysters, and Southern gentlemen that populate Twain's text. Names like Lillian Gish and Jim Dale stand out among the actors (and indeed, Jim Dale almost steals the show in his role as the ragamuffin Duke who fancies himself a Shakespearian), but everybody is superb. Even small parts like that of a bombastic hell-and-brimstone preacher at a camp meeting in a single scene or the brief appearance of the needle-sharp Miss Watson shine.

There are a few imperfections: the last section of the film (at the Phelps' plantation with Tom Sawyer) feels strangely rushed, at least when compared to the skillfully smooth and steady pace that precedes it, and the end comes abruptly. But on the whole, this version – with its faithfulness and unparalleled recreation of time and place – is the one that best catches the novel's spirit.

This is a brilliant adaptation of the classic novel, especially by telemovie standards. It isn't at all schmaltsy or patronizing. The leads of Patrick Day, Jim Dale and Barnard Hughes give life and personality to their characters very well. And it certainly captures both the humor and sharp social commentary of the novel excellently.

<Spoiler warning.>

My only disappointment with this version is that Huck sounds a little bit too well-educated and formal for what is essentially a 19th century "street kid" with a minimum amount of formal education, even though the essential "street smarts" and sympathetic nature of the character are preserved. And also, the final big con scheme is totally deleted. (They probably ran out of time and money). The over-all pacing is also a tad slow. (By the way, I saw this as a video version which was apparently edited down from an original mini-series).

I still like the 1993 version of the story the best, but this is a very close second in my estimation.