Watch The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn For Free

Touches You

How sad is this?

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Even though 14-year-old Huckleberry Finn stole, smoked, lied, cursed and was lazier than an old possum, he was still a likable sort of rascal who was always full of bull and yarns and home-spun advice for all of his gullible friends, and the likes.Released in 1939 - The Adventures Of Huckleberry Finn would the first of 4 screen adaptations that energetically tackled Mark Twain's novel (written in 1884) of the same name.Set in the year 1835 (where the action takes place in Missouri, along the Mississippi River), this decidedly average MGM production was still an entertaining and good-natured tale that I think was probably best suited for the enjoyment of a much younger audience than myself.Though far from being faithful to the novel (where the racism was toned-down considerably), The Adventures Of Huckleberry Finn starred the young, gung-ho actor, Mickey Rooney (who was 19 at the time) as the title character.Full of pep and energy, Rooney (like the rest of the cast) put in a sincere and believable performance which certainly helped to keep the story fresh and relatively interesting.This picture's story focuses in on Huck's raft trip down the Mississippi, accompanied by Jim, a negro slave running away from being sold. Together these 2 strike a bond of friendship as they inevitably find themselves led through some harrowing events and hair-raising adventures.

The others were the 1993 Elijah Wood film which was quite good, the 1974 musical version which was heavily flawed but still above-average and the 1975 Ron Howard version which was soggy and actually very bad. The photography in this film may be at times less than lavish and the final third feels rushed, but of the four it was the version that came across on its own as the best. As an adaptation perhaps it's not great, then again this is adaptation we're talking about(when something is not faithful to its source it doesn't mean it's immediately bad) and it does deserve judgement on its own merits. And while it's not perfect, it has many merits. The authentic river locations are a major plus, while the dialogue flows well and manages to be entertaining and poignant and the story still has cohesion and a good sense of atmosphere. The film may have primarily have been a showcase for Mickey Rooney but even with that the story is thankfully not ignored. Jim's jail scene is deeply heart-breaking. The pacing does feel rushed in the final third of the film but for most of the film it is just right, while the direction is very competent if not entirely imaginative. But the best asset about this version of Huckleberry Finn is the acting, so effective to the extent that it's like the characters themselves stepping out of the pages, and we are talking also about physical resemblances. Mickey Rooney's Huck is charming, mischievous and towards the end affecting(he may be somewhat too old, though not by much, but he doesn't look like he is), while Rex Ingram(personal favourite actor in the film) is very dignified and nuanced as Jim and Victor Kilian's Pap dominates quite terrifyingly. Walter Connolly and William Frawley are wickedly funny and menacing, in almost all four versions the Duke and the King have been scene-stealing characters(apart from 1975, hardly any the actors acquitted themselves well apart from Jack Elam). Elizabeth Ridson is fine as well. Overall, very good and underrated, of the four versions so far seen it's the best by quite some way. 8/10 Bethany Cox

Most novels are long enough to require considerable editing to make them fit into the usual 90 minute format that Hollywood preferred in the days of 1939. What to leave out is always a problem. Someone's favourite scene is sure to be lost, whatever the treatment writers do. Mark Twain' classic seems to have always been troublesome for Hollywood. Put in too much and someone is sure to scream "racist"; Leave out too much and someone else is going to scream "chicken"! This version strikes a rather nice balance, but of course it didn't please everyone. Personally, I feel that leaving out Tom Sawyer is all to the good. His antics always seemed farcical to me. The comedy that remains in this version is not exaggerated, but is rather subtle. The real defect is that the film proceeds smoothly for about the first two-thirds, up to the time Huck is bitten by the snake. After that, everything is rushed and choppily edited. It makes for a disappointing finish. I admit, though, that the lynch mob scene, with Jim cowering in the jail as the mob batters down the jail door is exciting. If you are unfamiliar with both novel and film, I'll let you find out how Huck saves Jim! This cast does an excellent job of presenting Mark Twain's characters. After all, MGM had probably the best stable of character actors in 1939 of all the studios. Rex Ingram stands out as "Jim", but Mickey Rooney truly was born to play "Huck". Charges that the subtle changes to Mark Twain's original, so far as the slave Jim and the attitudes toward him are portrayed, mark this film as "racist" strike me as absurd. Efforts to bar the film, sometimes even the novel, here and there, are just Political Correctness run amok. Slavery was part of American Life in the time frame of the story, and attitudes varied from region to region. This is accurately reflected in both film and novel. Jim, too, get s sympathetic treatment in both. Where's the "racism"?

I am surprised that there is no other review for this movie and I am the first to post my opinion on this box office hit of 1939, a top 20 hit of its year. When I sat down to watch this adaptation of the famous Mark Twain novel, I knew the running time was under 90 minutes so I did not expect to get the full book which I have read but the cliff notes version which I have also read. But no, Louis B. Mayer just had to give it the MGM cornball effect with scenes which are not in the novel and which change the meaning and transformation of Huck's character. Mickey Rooney, the biggest child actor the movies have ever heard, and in my opinion, also the best it has had brings one of those flawless performances to the role. Rex Ingram makes for a good runaway slave Jim and the other performances are fine. Direction is pendant in the hands MGM journeyman - that is not a craftsman, not an auteur, imagination insignificant, camera angles; perfunctory, directing actors; left to your own devices - Richard Thorpe who had a long and healthy career in Hollywood. You wonder why? The first half does feel like a cliff notes version as the scenes skip through have a general lethargic pace but keeps your attention because the story is good anyway. The changes involve the capture of Jim and Huck's injury and the resolution of the aforementioned events. It is not what happens and tongue-in-cheek ending changes the message of Twain's classic. I won't say I didn't enjoy it. I just mean if you are going to alter a classic, you'd better come up with something better.