Opiniones de usuarios

This was the third of William Desmond Taylor's trilogy of films celebrating the adventures of Mark Train's famous Mississippi River lads. "Tom Sawyer" (1917), with Jack Pickford in the lead, was the first success. As Mr. Pickford's delinquent friend Huckleberry "Huck" Finn, Robert Gordon shared the good notices and made critics' annual best supporting actor lists. The sequel "Huck and Tom" (1918) reflected this it its title, though the film covered further events in Tom's book. Two years later, the "boys" were even more obviously too old for the parts, so Mr. Taylor cast younger Lewis Sargent in the pivotal role...

Gordon is missed, but Taylor wins you over by the time Mr. Sargent battles his deliriously drunken father Frank Lanning, who was striking as "Injun Joe" in the previous movie; their well-acted cabin scene elevates the film. Also making good impressions are "dancing" George Reed (as Jim) and Gordon Griffith (as Tom). Beautiful young Esther Ralston (as Mary Jane) has true grit. Sneaky uncles Orral Humphrey and Tom Bates are a lesser emphasized Duke and King. A top production of its time, Taylor's "Huckleberry Finn" was rescued from degeneration and restored by the good folks at the "George Eastman House".

******* Huckleberry Finn (2/22/20) William Desmond Taylor ~ Lewis Sargent, Gordon Griffith, George Reed, Esther Ralston

The first film adaptation of Huckleberry Finn remains one of the best, despite the ravages of time and a major script problem. Filmed only a decade after Mark Twain's death, this film is free from the slickness of later Hollywood adaptations and has a truly convincing young lead instead of a cutesy child actor. As Huck, Lewis Sargent is completely convincing: he's a ragged, likable mutt that Twain would have approved of (as he does in the film!). He makes Mickey Rooney look like a well-groomed phony. George Reed plays a mature, sometimes sedate Jim, but he's undeserved by the script and missing footage (including his escape). Huck and Jim's friendship doesn't comes across as deeply as it should, despite the excellence of the actors, and that is a major flaw.

William Desmond Taylor is better known for his unsolved murder than his films, but he was a skilled director with a fluid, advanced style. This film's pacing and style were advanced for 1920 and hold up well today. The settings and art direction have rustic, old-time authenticity: the filmmakers emulated Edward W. Kemble's illustrations and shot the outdoors scenes in the Sacramento River Delta (where later Finns where shot as well, since it was closer to Los Angeles than the Mississippi River and looked just as good). Since the film only survived in an incomplete print held by the Danish Film Archive, the intertitles had to be translated and recreated by the George Eastman Museum, which used text direct from Twain.

There has yet to be a great film made from this classic novel, but Taylor's production features the best Huck and is the closest to Twain's own time, which makes it worth seeing more than most later films of Huckleberry Finn.

Huckleberry Finn (1920)

*** (out of 4)

The now infamous William Desmond Taylor directed this very first adaptation of Mark Twain's novel, which has Lewis Sargent playing Huck. This is a fairly straight adaptation hitting on the key moments in the story has Huck and the runaway slave Jim (George Reed) head down the Mississippi River getting into one situation after another. This here was a lost film until 1962 when a print turned up in a Danish vault and it took until 2011 for George Eastman House to restore it. It should be noted that there were some issues doing this including them having to translate the title cards from Danish to English, which caused some of the dialogue to have to be taken directly from the novel. Another issue is that there are at least three sequences that are still missing and these here get a title card of what you should be seeing. With that said, I was pleasantly surprised to see how much I enjoyed this picture. Yes, it's not 100% the novel but then again very few films are that faithful. What I enjoyed most was the performance of Sargent who I thought was excellent in the role. I thought he brought a youthful energy to the part and I really couldn't help but think he's one of the best I've seen in the role. He certainly kept the character going at full speed and there's no question that he was fun to watch. Reed was also excellent in the role of Jim as he manages to bring some nice humor. Gordon Griffith is good as Tom Sawyer and Edythe Chapman also stands out as Aunt Polly. The direction is pretty good throughout as the pacing is nice and there's never really any slow moments.

This movie was fantastic. It definately is a lot different from the book but that's what made it so good. Movie is in good detail with the book even though they're quite different. the movie is very good and everyone should go see it.