User reviews

A forgotten relic from the early '70s, when shows like "Little House on the Prairie" and "The Waltons" all reflected our yearning for a so-called simpler, less complicated era. This adaptation, while not entirely faithful to the book, captures its essential themes and spirit rather well. There are some technical problems (the lighting always seem to be half in shadow, whether it's night or day!) and its kiddie-friendly tone seems at odds during the Grangerfords/Shepherdsons sequence, wherein we see men being shot and killed right on camera--and it's handled rather lightly. Parents should also be warned that this adaptation does have some strong language--it has not been sanitized, notwithstanding its G rating.

In addition, the musical format sits much more uneasily with this movie than with the superior "Tom Sawyer" (from the year before, with many of the same cast members and production staff). However, as oddly as some numbers come off, others are wonderful, such as the clever, dixie-ish "Cairo, Illinois," a duet between Huck and Jim that kicks off their great journey together. The jaunty title song and the lovely anthem "Freedom" also showcase the movie and its themes beautifully--especially during "Freedom"'s reprise, as Huck, the boy/man run away, gazes after Jim making his way downriver. Performances are generally strong--Jeff East could've been a better singer but his performance is so sincere and authentic, you hardly notice. Likewise his bond with Jim (well-portrayed by the late Paul Winfield) comes through nicely, most especially in their final, very moving scene together. Harvey Korman and David Wayne also deliver terrific turns as the King and the Duke, respectively.

Cinematography is *gorgeous*--the DP took full advantage of the location shoot, with some beautiful silhouette shots. Although its prequel is far better (you simply cannot top "Tom Sawyer"'s terrific score and thoroughbred cast), Mark Twain's quintessential Great American novel is reasonably well-served here, if not transcendently.

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is not a literary classic, a little slow and episodic, and Tom Sawyer and Prince and the Pauper are superior when it comes to Mark Twain. It is still a good read though and if you like Mark Twain there is little reason why you shouldn't like Huckleberry Finn. This musical version is watchable enough on its own terms but could have been better, the musical version of Tom Sawyer from a similar time frame was a better film from personal perspective. The Sherman Brothers' songs apart from Freedom and Cairo Illinois are disappointingly forgettable and some of them are either not very well placed(Royalty, though the number has some amusing moments) or pretty lifeless, most of their songs generally are timeless but Huckleberry Finn is one of their weakest overall scores. The story does lack sparkle sometimes and pacing-wise there are some dull stretches. There is some evidence of Twain's writing coming through, but with the political correctness treatment of Jim things can feel diluted, and some of the dark tone and strong language can have a tendency to be at odds with the rest of the film. Huckleberry Finn has great costumes and sets and is very handsomely filmed, especially in the ending and with the raft. There is some very funny comedy and heartfelt drama too, and the ending is very moving. J Lee Thompson directs and stages things very competently and with precision if on occasions a little too carefully. The performances are good, though the singing is not the best there is. Jeff East's Huckleberry is both spirited and sincere and even with the political correctness diluting Jim's character Paul Winfield is still very touchingly dignified. The chemistry between the two looks and feel really genuine. Harvey Korman and David Wayne were clever casting, and both are a lot of fun and they seem to be having a ball. All in all, disappointing but still watchable. 6/10 Bethany Cox

Mark Twain purists might take issue with the changes made in the story of the classic Huckleberry Finn. But I rather like the approach that was taken here and also the performance of Jeff East in the title role.

This was East's second film, he debuted the previous year in Tom Sawyer also playing Huck Finn. Later on he would be young Clark Kent in the blockbuster Superman film.

Harvey Korman and David Wayne are nothing short of brilliant as those two rogues the 'king' and the 'duke'. Both look like they are having a great old time. Gary Merrill is superb as Huck Finn's white trash Pap.

In this post civil rights era film particular emphasis is placed on Huck's relationship with runaway slave Jim with whom he shares that raft on the Mississppi. The optimism of Twain's work stems from the white trash background that Huck has, but that how he thinks and reasons and generally tries to rise above it. Some very good scenes are shared with East and with Paul Winfield as Jim.

The Sherman Brothers musical score is serviceable for the film, but nothing outstanding. The sets and cinematography really do convey life in the ante bellum souh and border states.

You can't go wrong with this adaption of Huckleberry Finn.

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 ****

Lovers of Huckleberry Finn might cringe at the liberties taken in this film, particularly at the end. The end that Twain wrote for the book wasn't very strong, with Tom Sawyer returning and making a muck of things. This is not the only version of Huck Finn that tries an alternate ending.

As a musical, this film does not work. The numbers are awkwardly placed and spaced, and some of the actors are unsure of their singing altogether. The songs in the companion film Tom Sawyer work better because they are usually sung as a voiceover, serving as an internal dialogue.

Another basic problem with this adaptation is that some of the most interesting events in the story take place offscreen. You only hear them described afterwards, which is a very weak storytelling device.

But oh, the memories! I saw this film when I was in my early teens, and I immediately fell for the young actor Jeff East in the title role. It was a great movie in my opinion back then, so as a recommendation to youngsters and pre-teenage girls, I can't do better now!

Unnecessary and unsatisfying musical rendering of Mark Twain's classic "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn". At least, it captures the genuine friendship between Jeff East (as Huckleberry Finn) and Paul Winfield (as Jim). However, these two performers are much more likable in other projects. Interestingly, Mr. East portrayed "Huck" in 1973's similarly presented re-make of "Tom Sawyer", which was considered the better film. In my opinion, East would have been a better "Tom" than "Huck". Some of the photography is rather nice, especially during the more moody ending. The Sherman-Sherman musical numbers are well below standard. The movie doesn't seem much like the book. Roberta Flack sings "Freedom" to end it all, at last.

*** Huckleberry Finn (1974) J. Lee Thompson ~ Jeff East, Paul Winfield, Harvey Korman

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.

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.

"Huckleberry Finn" from 1974 produced by Reader's Digest is a sort of sequel to 1973's "Tom Sawyer" produced by the same people. Both films are very good and in my opinion the best film adaptations that I've seen. I am glad that they were made and they still hold up and are worth watching. I think both of Twain's stories do an important job of showcasing a time and place in American history, and his stories now themselves hold an important place in American history and culture. So, I am glad that these perhaps improbable film projects (by Reader's Digest of all things?!) were made.

"Tom Sawyer" is probably a better overall film and story, with a little better flow and pace, however "Huckleberry Finn" is still good, especially so due to its able taking on of mature themes such as slavery. There are a few slow and silly parts but it is forgivable as the film overall takes one on the rafting adventure along with Huck. The 1960 film "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" is also good (especially Tony Randall) but it has more of an old Hollywood studio feel half of the time whereas the 1974 film is shot on real locations and has a more tangible feel.

I largely forget the novel "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" as it has been so long since I read it but I recall it have lots of tough language and dialect. I am glad that the 1974 film largely removes that factor. Twain purists may disapprove, but slight sanitation does improve the story in my opinion. So, overall I am glad that I finally watched this entire film as I had seen part of it on television years ago but I couldn't remember the exact title or year and I actually had trouble finding the film again until later searching on IMDB (thanks IMDB).

Obviously, this film did make an impression on me as I remembered it years later, that often is the best way of telling which movies are impactful -- do you remember them (in a positive way). Overall, I don't mean to oversell this film, its not perfect, but it is good and worthy of still being watched today, as is the 1973 "Tom Sawyer" film. I rated both 8/10.

This movie pretty much ruins Twain's masterpiece, but the worst thing in it, and one of the worst performances I've ever seen, is Harvey Korman's so-called "enactment" of The King.

Couldn't anyone tell him he was overacting? Did he think he was on the stage or television? And that awful voice he used made it hard to understand what he was saying or singing, not that it was necessarily worth understanding, of course.

I thought the 1960 version of HF was disappointing, but this one is pretty sickening.

Jeff East seemed to have lost his "Huck Finn" in this sequel. He did a way better job in Tom Sawyer as Huck Finn.

Tom Sawyer seemed to flow a lot better with the plot also. This one just seemed like it was thrown together to make a musical. I was able to finish watching this, but barely.

Huge Mark Twain fan. In my opinion this is the very best production of Huckleberry Finn. Great choreography, costumes, and sets. It does have a musical element but it doesn't detract from the production but instead complements it. The movie does not have a juvenile feel to it and could be enjoyed by the entire family but with parental discretion as this deeper cultural issues are explored. If you enjoy this movie you should check out Tom Sawyer. It features cast reprisals and is a bit more lighthearted. Enjoy.

it was a great movie there was just to many bad words in it that was all but it was still a outstanding movie it is one of the best movies ever made it was out of this world amazing there is nothing like this it is like one of the best movies you will say now that was a great movie because it was a great movie i know that for a fact it is one of the coolest movies one the planet if you like a musical than you will like this movie a lot it is a hoot it is a sad movie it is just a great movie for the whole family it is a smart movie it is a must see movie for sure i never saw a movie like this before this movie is such a great movie but there is to many bad words in it but it was a movie that i could watch more than once it is that good it is one of the best movies ever made i think and i hope you think the same thing because it is a great movie you will like it a lot everyone