Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Watch something else. There are very few redeeming qualities to this film.

Blistering performances.

This is one of a number of film adaptations of Mark Twain's classic novel of the same title. I haven't seen any others to compare. Although Eddie Hodges, as Huck Finn, and Archie Moore, as African American slave Jim, are the principle characters, I vote for Tony Randall as giving the stand out acting performance, as con man the 'King', along with his accomplice Mickey Shaughnessy, as the 'Duke'........In general, I found it an entertaining experience. Neville Brand plays Huck's scary ne'er do well alcoholic father, Papy, who is always criticizing Huck. He even accuses Huck of murdering his mother, since she died in childbirth. Jose Hutchinson plays the widow Douglas, who takes Huck in, being essentially an orphan. Jim, slave to the widow, runs away after he heard that she was planning on selling him to raise money to meet Papy's demand for not taking Huck way. Jim is also accused of probably murdering Huck, in Huck's staged suggestion that he had been attacked and thrown in the river. These two runaways meet and steal a raft to float down the Mississippi.......I have several reality issues to discuss. Jim's stated goal is to float down to Cairo, Illinois, a free state, and head north. But, Hannibal , Missouri, where he started from, is well north of Cairo. So, why couldn't he simply raft over to the Illinois side of the river and claim freedom?? 2)Jim recognizes the corpse in the derelict house boat they run into as being that of Papy, and refuses to allow Huck to see in that room. How did Papy's corpse wind up there? He lived in a shack. 3)Why are the King and the Duke on the steamboat that picked up Huck and Jim? They were arrested by the sheriff and presumably put in jail, unless they simply paid a fine for impersonating, with the intent of robbing an inheritance. See it In color at YouTube

I just watched this movie on Turner Classic Movies and I really enjoyed it. I don't know how closely it follows the book, as I haven't read this book, just "Tom Sawyer", but I find the movie to be a great family movie. It was fun watching Huck get out of one scrape just in time to get into another. He was always on the run, along with the Widow Douglas' slave, Jim. It made think back to my boyhood days and honestly, it made my boyhood adventures look dull. The plot hearkens back to a time when life was simple and offered more freedom to boys then today's world does. I'm not sure the movie is entirely realistic, but that's quite all right with me. The acting was well done, the colour quality was great for 1960, and the whole plot flowed quite smoothly. I didn't quite understand the ending, which I won't spoil for you. If you like tales of boyhood adventure from an America the world will never see again, you have to see Huck Finn. And it's got some of the greatest actors of the day in it as well. What more can you ask for.10/10

Although the movie was mildly entertaining, it is a very poor representation of Mark Twain’s book on which this movie is “based.” Crucial character elements are either weakly represented or altogether missing from the movie. In the book, Huck Finn, a young boy, and Jim, a runaway slave, travel far down the Mississippi River from their starting point in Missouri. In this movie, they only get a mile or two past Illinois. The book portrays Jim as a kind-hearted, loving person who wants freedom for himself and his family. In this movie, he is seen as a simpleton and gives the impression that the entire story is racist. Although the movie may not show it, Twain was an abolitionist. In the book, Huck overcomes the prejudices of his upbringing and helps Jim to become free, even if Huck must go to hell for doing so.Eddie Hodges and Archie Moore performed decently in this movie from a pure entertainment point of view, but neither of their characters showed the elements which Train created in them. Michael Curtiz and James Lee allowed elements of Twain’s book to be reorganized or left out altogether. They even created two scenes which never existed even in part in the book. If you don not mind mediocre acting, by all means go ahead and watch this movie, but do not think for one second that it reflects accurately the image or message which Twain created in his book.

Michael Curtiz should have been thoroughly ashamed of himself when he was finished with this production. I can understand why directors will shorten or paraphrase certain adaptations from well-known literature, but to make wholesale changes in an American masterpiece is unforgivable. Huge and important parts of the novel were totally absent, or switched around and added to other parts of the movie that made it incomprehensible. Eddie Hodges (and Archie Moore) were terrible choices for the two main characters. Aside from never coming even close to a realistic dialect from that time and locale, neither actor were truly up to the task. There were some bright spots, though - notably Mickey Shaughnessy and Tony Randall (but even these were wasted.) Overall, a very poor effort and a waste of any true film buff's time. It leaves a very bad taste in one's mouth. Twain deserves better. If you want to see a better version, check out the 1939 version with Mickey Rooney.