Best movie ever!

It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Back in the 1930s and 40s, Hollywood often took a rather cavalier attitude towards classic material. A great example is 1936's "Romeo & Juliet", which featured actors two to three times the age of the characters and credits 'additional dialog' to an MGM writer! Another is "Wuthering Heights"...where the studio tacked on a HAPPY ending!! Because of this, I assumed that they'd similarly ruin Mark Twain's classic story of Huck Finn...especially because the story has a strong abolitionist slant...and studios OFTEN would sanitize these sorts of things in order to not offend racist audience members! I was shocked, then, when the story turned out to be very close to the source material...and as a result, it is a fine movie. It also deeply humanizes Jim and makes for an amazingly heartfelt film. Well worth seeing.By the way, at one point in the film, Huck is bitten by a rattlesnake and Jim cuts open the wound and sucks out the poison. Despite this being a common belief, this is NOT a good idea!! Kids, don't try this at home.

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

Recommended for family entertainment, "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" showcases the talents of "Mickey Rooney" and shows why he has been such a beloved actor for so many years.Mickey Rooney stars as the title character, according to the book about 13 years old. Rooney was already past 18, but with his short stature and boyish face he looks exactly the part of young mischievous boy whom we see smoking his pipe and walking barefoot through the dust.Based on Mark Twain's book of the same name, it is as closely adapted as the time constraints and censorship would allow. The general substance of the novel is left intact with a few details changed for the sake of dramatic license; otherwise it is well adapted as I remember from my recent re-reading of the novel.Mickey Rooney is perfect in his portrayal of Huck, with his mischievous ways and always with a twinkle in his eye. Rex Ingram makes a thoughtful "Jim" whose quiet dignity makes Huck learn to accept him as a man, not just a piece of property to be owned.The movie is quite funny and will become a favorite of the whole family with its wholesome characters and situations. If you get a chance to see it, I think you will agree that this is real entertainment that everyone can enjoy.