Commentaires des utilisateurs

We all know the story. There have been some pretty good Tom Sawyer movies made. This one capitalizes on star power for an audience that probably has never heard of the principle character. Putting these motives aside, it just doesn't work the best. While Jonathan Taylor Thomas is an adequate Tom, Brad Renfro is not a very good Huck. He is too much of a pretty boy. He is much too bright, though his character tries to make him otherwise. If you've read Twain, you know that he is tremendously superstitious and has really rough edges, both mentally and physically. He is kind of whiny in this movie. Becky Thatcher looks to be about 25 years old and stands next to Tom like a giant. She pushes him around and dominates. Obviously, the director decided to make her an attractive character to young women. That's not bad, but it betrays the spirit of the period in which it was written. They should at least have looked about the same age.

There are good scenes. The graveyard scene is well done. Injun Joe is threatening and murderous. The funeral scene is a disappointment. It needed to be milked a bit. Some of the peripheral characters could have been more developed. The conclusion works OK. However, it needed a dose of truth and believability to carry it through. See it, but don't expect a lot.

There are things that Tom and Huck does do right. The three best things about it are the production values, the score and Eric Schweig as Injun Joe. The film looks very pretty with quite evocative costumes and sets, while the score is both memorable and relaxing. Schweig is perfect as Injun Joe and genuinely menacing, though the writers perhaps go a little overboard with the villainous and somewhat violent side to him. Brad Renfro does do well as Huck, the character does come across as too sullen and hard but Renfro is suitably mischievous and brings some fun amongst bringing out a somewhat conflicted side to Huck. There are some effective scenes, the graveyard scene is very atmospheric and the moment when Injun Joe starts to stir/stirs when Tom is reaching for the map sends chills up the spine. The whitewashing scene is very charming as well.

There are some mixed feelings assets here. Jonathan Taylor Thomas(of whom Tom and Huck is like a vehicle for him early in his career) makes for a spirited Tom but the more dramatic moments(the courtroom scene is quite good though) show signs of inexperience. Peter Hewitt's filmography has been hit and miss, Tom and Huck is one of his better films and thankfully is not another Zoom or Thunderpants but his best film will always be Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey(that and The Borrowers, of the films I've seen so far of his, are the only ones that have ratings better than decent).

Tom and Huck does have its failings though, the worst case was the grossly out-of-kilter way Becky was written, if there is a more selfish and bitchy Becky on any film adaptation of Tom Sawyer it's yet to be seen and Rachael Leigh Cook while attractive does come across as forced and stereotypical-teen-like in her acting. There are some fun moments injected in the more nostalgic and charming moments seen in the first half but the second half, where it's all suspense thriller and Injun Joe on the rampage feels like a different film altogether, the two halves just juxtapose too much. The crucial scenes are there even when the adaptation is quite loose but the heart is lacking. The funeral scene falls flat being very under-characterised and rushed through, and the "engagement" scene came across as overly-sentimental(an attempt by Disney to make the story more timely) and awkward as well. The worst bit of dialogue was Becky's "What? I'm not the first? I hope you die", not only is it a terrible and shallow thing to say in the first place but it is something that Becky would never dream of saying. Much of the dialogue is weak, not just that line from Becky but the whole style is not very nuanced and it feels at times too modern. Little attempt also is made to bringing Missouri's dialect, language and how they speak, the production values did a great job in being evocative, why didn't the writing make an effort too? And this is coming from someone to makes a big effort in judging films/TV series/literary adaptations on their own terms. Other than Huck, Injun Joe and to a lesser extent Tom, the rest of the actors suffer from their characters being underdeveloped and don't register as a result really.

To conclude, Tom and Huck is alright as a film though with many problems but along with the Soviet film(with the bad dubbing, pacing and editing) it is one of the weaker adaptations of a great book. 5/10 Bethany Cox

This version of the classic novel by Mark Twain makes a nice little movie, but fails to capture the humorous spirit of the book. Many hilarious scenes are missing and the writers have taken too many liberties with the plot.

Jonathan Taylor Thomas is wonderful as Tom Sawyer. Unfortunately his charm does not last until the very end of the movie, but seems to fade after a while. It might possibly have something to do with the fact, that, even though this movie is based on "The Adventures Of Tom Sawyer", it's actually Huck's character that steals the whole show.

I had a bit of a problem with the way Huck Finn was portrayed in this movie. Of course Brad Renfro is a fantastic actor (his performance is probably the best thing about this film) and he manages to give Huck Finn many tragic and deep aspects. Unfortunately Mark Twain's Huck Finn is neither tragic or very deep. One can only wonder why Huck has been made the brooding hero, when it's actually Tom Sawyer, who is supposed to be the brightest star in this story.

Despite the many sugar-coated scenes and the fact that both Tom and Huck are a bit out-of-character, this movie is still something worth seeing. Injun Joe and Muff Potter are both realistic and Rachael Leigh Cook makes a brilliant and not-so-girly Becky Thatcher! The sets and wardrobe look very authentic, but they alone are not enough to bring the evergreen story wholly alive.

Tom Sawyer (Jonathan Taylor Thomas) runs away and is rescued by Huck Finn (Brad Renfro). They see Injun Joe and Muff Potter digging up the grave of Vic 'One-Eyed' Murrell to retrieve a treasure map for Doctor Robinson. Injun Joe murders Doc Robinson with Muff's knife. Muff is arrested for the murder. Tom is torn between an oath to Huck and his need to exonerate an innocent man.

The production looks weak. This Disney doesn't have the needed edge and doesn't even have Disney money. The story has too many killings to be a kiddie movie. The movie doesn't have the grittiness to feel real. Jonathan Taylor Thomas used to be a thing back in the day. He's cute with a twinkle in his eye. I don't lay too much on him. He just doesn't have the toughness unlike Brad Renfro. Rachael Leigh Cook is a cutie in this one. This movie's tone is all over the place.

Visually, Tom and Huck is eye-pleasing, and Jonathan Taylor Thomas and Brad Renfro make a good pair as Tom and Huck. Other cast members fit their parts.

That the film did not strictly follow Mark Twain is no problem if you let the film story stand on its own. It is entertaining just for what it is.

Tom and Huck is an interesting enough film, but the transformation of Eric Schweig in his portrayal of Injun Joe compared to his characterization of Uncas in The Last of the Mohicans, is the most fascinating thing about it. In the body of his films, he seems to be able to alternate between utterly noble and utterly disgusting (e.g., Missing). Great acting.

Oh, where to begin with this movie. I'll start with some of the good: Eric Schweig was perfectly cast as the murderous, intimidating, menacing Injun Joe. If I could create my own Tom Sawyer classic movie, I'd recast him. Same with Michael McShane as Muff Potter. Jonathan Taylor Thomas sounds like the perfect Tom Sawyer on paper; he does have a history of playing rambunctious, trouble-making boys, and he has a special place in my heart as Simba from The Lion King, my favorite Disney movie. But here...he's just alright. He doesn't have as much of the edge that made Tom Sawyer such a fascinating, dynamic character. Most of the blame for that goes to the writers though; I'm sure Thomas would have done much better had he been given better material to work with. Everyone else was sorely miscast (i.e Huckleberry Finn, Becky Thatcher, Aunt Polly, Widow Douglas, Joe Harper, etc.), and the characters who did have decent casting (Judge Thatcher, Ben Rogers, Mr. Dobbins, etc.) didn't stand out very much.

No attempt was made to create the atmosphere of Tom Sawyer (the dialect, the plot, the setting, the characters, etc.) Every boy, including Tom Sawyer, went barefoot in the book, but in the movie they all wore shoes. This may not seem like a big deal, but it's part of the edge Tom Sawyer and his friends have in the book; they're not afraid to get down and dirty in the adventures they have, and the boys who do wear shoes in the book are looked down upon as sissies.

In the novel, Tom Sawyer gets whooped at least twice. In this version, he doesn't even get it once.

Huckleberry Finn in the books was carefree, laid-back, and is satisfied with his independent lifestyle. Although he is despised by every "respectable" adult in St. Petersburg, he's envied and friends with most of the children, and he doesn't feel sorry for himself. Brad Renfro's Huck is snide, irritable, sarcastic, and even somewhat of a bully, nothing at all like Twain's Huck. This Huck DOES feel sorry for himself, and often takes his frustrations out on Tom.

Becky Thatcher in the book is a bit too demure and puts on airs. But she isn't a bitch. In the book, Tom gets back into her good graces by taking the hit for her (literally) and their relationship grows even stronger in the cave scene. In the movie, she's portrayed as a bitch plain and simple; in fact she holds a continuous grudge against Tom throughout the movie, which makes their bonding in the cave scene really forced. Not to mention that Rachael Leigh Cook as Becky Thatcher is probably the worst case of miscasting in this movie; she was way too old and was a good two heads taller than Jonathan Taylor Thomas.

Disney could have made their own version of Tom Sawyer great, especially with Jonathan Taylor Thomas as the lead. What a wasted, missed opportunity.

Tom and Huck isn't a great movie, but it's a good way for kids to be introduced to the characters of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn. Although it may be a bit intense for children under six, since the plot revolves around a murderer and his plot for revenge. And even though this movie is set in the 1840s, it has a strong 90s feel to it. Whatever happened to Jonathan Taylor Thomas?

A mischievous young boy, Tom Sawyer (Jonathan Taylor Thomas),witnesses a murder by the deadly Injun Joe. Tom becomes friends with Huckleberry Finn (Brad Renfro), a boy with no future and no family.

Going through the Top 250 lists from various years, somehow this ended up on the list for 1996. Of all the lists from 1996 through 2014, this first list is the most bizarre. Others have films that clearly do not belong, but none more than the 1996 list. And this is a prime example. How did a film that barely ranks above 5 out of 10 manage to be considered one of the best of all time? Not that this is a bad film. As far as kid stories go, it is alright, and not the worst introduction to the world of Mark Twain. But it is clearly not intended to be a masterpiece, but more like something one might see on the Hallmark channel. Just a showcase for the now-forgotten Jonathan Taylor Thomas.

Sneaking around the cemetery late at night, mischievous pals Tom Sawyer (Jonathan Taylor Thomas) and Huckleberry Finn (Brad Renfro) secretly view local bully Injun Joe (Eric Schweig) murdering the town's undertaker with his knife. The frightened friends swear never to speak to anyone about what they saw, but, when Tom learns that harmless town drunk Muff Potter (Michael McShane) has been charged with the murder, his conscience forces him to intervene and clear Potter's name.

I never liked the story so much, in fact, it was unknown to me until recently (I barely knew about Lost), however after my trip to Disney I was completely in love with Tom Sawyer Island, the mini Island there is just perfect, a little place that makes you want to live there, so I started to appreciate the work itself, the film is very faithful to the book so I was able to research what enchanted me enormously...

It's an awful presentation, the original tale isn't much better - who do these injuns think they are acting as if they own the place. Curious that Mark Twain didn't use someone of white western European descent for his antagonist. Sadly makes this and him a statue that belongs in a museum.

No one can deny the quality and relevance of Mark Twain's work, even those who, like me, were never attracted to his books. Yes, I have never read Twain's books, even though they are available in good translations into my mother tongue. I never felt the desire or curiosity. This film takes advantage of two of its most important characters: Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn, two boys full of personality. However, it's the only thing it takes advantage of, creating an entirely new story for them.

It may not seem like it, but it is a film with Disney's approval. It is a film aimed at a teenage audience, with some maturity, and therefore has some violence and already addresses normal themes among teenagers, such as dating. The story created for the film is good enough for the effect it is, and for the film in question, but it is clear that the studio did not waste a lot of time or spend a lot of money on this production. On a technical level, the film meets the minimum requirements, but does not deliver anything beyond that.

Overall, the film is good enough to entertain us, but it is unlikely to leave a lasting memory in anyone's mind. It is absolutely forgettable, so much so that, nowadays, no one remembers it. Jonathan Taylor Thomas and Brad Renfro are the duo of young actors who lead the cast, and they are really the only ones to deserve a certain type of prominence for the work they have developed. Eric Schweig and Michael McShane do smaller jobs, but they are the most valuable adults. The rest of the cast is an anonymous and indistinct mass like a ballet nucleus, moving and circulating without wanting our attention.

The first time that I remember seeing this was at my 5th grade teacher's house. Every since then, I liked it.

Jonathan Taylor Thomas and Brad Renfro are some of my favorite actors of the 90s, and they delivered a clean performance in this film. The girl who played as Becky wasn't half bad either (although at times her selfish and rather stubborn attitude annoyed me). But she did seem to do a better job than Jodie Foster did in the 70s musical version of "Tom Sawyer" (no disrespect).

I've seen several versions of the "Tom Sawyer" and "Huckleberry Finn" stories, and although it's not my favorite version of the story, it is amongst my favorites. All in all, I give it a 7/10.

Disney did good but still this version will never compare to the 1970's musical version. "Tom and Huck for a New Generation" is what this movie should have been called. The storyline stays true to the book but there is a modern day mid 90s feel about the relationship between Tom and Huck. Not unlike the old days when Tom and Huck in other filmed versions would simply drop what they were doing to go and play the ultimate prank on their unsuspecting prey.

The story was ok, but at some point I have to say that it's allday racism of the 18xx against natives. Natives allways have to be the bad counterpart in such a story. Even black people weren't in a fix like natives. So the story might have been good for the times Mark Twain wrote them - and I rely on the studios correctness to not change the story from Mark Twain too much. I also have too admit that I never read any book of Mark Twain. But if the story goes other way, shame on the studio. Both options are bad, so I won't change my mind about my rating. Offside the racism through native stereotypes, it is a nice movie for kids, not more. I wouldn't show it to kids without teaching them about stereotypes against natives.

Good enough.

It doesn't come close to Disney's other film from the 1990s featuring Mark Twain's Huckleberry, 'The Adventures of Huck Finn'. In fairness, this one is more about Tom Sawyer than Huck, which is pleasing given they already portrayed Huck just two years prior.

The actor who depicts the latterly named character is Brad Renfro, who isn't all that to be truthful; he's fine, just not memorable at all. Jonathan Taylor Thomas, meanwhile, plays Tom and he is, probably, the best part of this production. He's cheekiness works well for the role. Elsewhere, Eric Schweig (Injun Joe) makes for a decent bad guy.

I like the vibe of 'Tom and Huck', I think it could've done without the love story but that doesn't hamper things much. I would say the film goes at a slower pace than I would prefer, it particularly drags ever so slightly towards the end. Still, I rate it... mostly thanks to Mr. Thomas.

Nineteenth century Mississippi River boy Jonathan Taylor Thomas (as Tom Sawyer) tries to runaway to New Orleans with his pals, but has to abort the mission with a bloody forehead. As punishment, young Thomas is directed to whitewash a fence, by guardian Amy Wright (as Aunt Polly). Thomas cleverly gets neighborhood lads to finish the job. He shares adventures with rebellious best-friend Brad Reno (as Huckleberry "Huck" Finn) and pretty girl-friend Rachael Leigh Cook (as Becky Thatcher).

While nothing to write Mark Twain about, the Disney studio's follow-up to their "The Adventures of Huck Finn" (1993) is serviceable. Both films would have (and will) be much more appealing to the elementary and primary school set, who will hopefully read the books. Strengths from the earlier version look better with a simpler music score and more appropriate leads. One wishes they had waited on the previous film to release as a sequel to this "Tom and Huck", as the original author intended.

***** Tom and Huck (12/22/95) Peter Hewitt ~ Jonathan Taylor Thomas, Brad Renfro, Eric Schweig, Rachael Leigh Cook

Tom Sawyer is a mischievous young boy, growing up in a small US town in the mid-1800s. He finds a friend in Huckleberry Finn, a vagrant and outcast, and the two get up to all sorts of boyish adventures. While on one of these adventures they witness a murder, leaving Tom with a dilemma.

Based on Mark Twain's famous novel, this adaptation is hardly definitive. Produced by Disney it's clearly made for kids, with dumbed-down plot development and sub-plots and performances by the leads that are aimed strictly at children. Throw in some pretty hammy acting all round and it appears to not have much going for it.

Yet it has some positives. It's a very harmless, accessible version of the book. If you've never read The Adventures of Tom Sawyer or watched any other version of the novel, it's a quick and painless introduction to the book. It's short and never dull so doesn't feel like a total waste of time. In addition, kids will enjoy it (which is great for Disney, as they are the target audience).

So not a total write-off.

This movie had some humor in it!! After I saw it i went out to buy it!! The movie had a really good story to it! Although showing the graveyard scene is a little much but the rest is very good!! Becky wasn't a very good Becky. In my opinion Tom Sawyer could have done a lot better!! The movie for me kinda goes to fast but i liked it very much!! It is a great family film but for Jonathan Taylor Thomas it is no Home Improvements but it is the closest thing to it! Besides it is set up in the 1800s and Tom Sawyer and Randy Taylor dress totally different! If you are a J.T.T you will like this and if your not it is still a good movie!!

I remember watching this movie when I was a kid and liking it so I gave it a shot. It wasn't terrible but it probably is better as a kids movie. Story follows Tom, a mischievous boy, and his nomad friend Huck, a teenager, as they witness a murder by Injin Joe (yeah yeah racism, white privledge, oppressive imperialism yada yada yada: get over it it's based on a book from the 1800s). The problem I felt with the story was that there was too much Tom tomfoolery and not enough Joe menacing. The story would move along and get sidetracked by some shenanigans by Tom and Huck. There were a lot of good scenes such as sneaking up on Joe to steal a map and Tom's moral dilemma about telling the truth at a trial to save a man's life and his blood promise with Huck. I felt the climatic scene was kind of blah. Again not terrible but better as a movie for your ten year old nephew.

Jonathan Taylor Thomas stars as Tom Sawyer, created by literary legend Mark Twain (a writing alias). Brad Renfro plays Huck Finn, the mischievious rebel who gets Tom in trouble.

The story basically goes the same way as the book, and could have been worse. But is also could have been better. Much better.

Decent acting, some boring throw-in scenes that have nothing to do with the story and/or plot, and more flaws such as the preceding.

2.5/5 stars --

John Ulmer

Tom and Huck, the 1995 Disney adaptation of Mark Twain's classic novel, lands with a resounding thud. While the film boasts a charming cast and picturesque scenery, it ultimately falls flat due to a lackluster script and uninspired direction. Jonathan Taylor Thomas and Brad Renfro, the film's young leads, do their best with the material they're given. Thomas embodies Tom Sawyer's mischievous charm, while Renfro brings a quiet intensity to the role of Huckleberry Finn. However, their efforts are hampered by a plot that feels both rushed and contrived. The film's biggest misstep is its treatment of Injun Joe, the story's villain. Eric Schweig's portrayal is cartoonishly evil, lacking the nuance and complexity that the character deserves. This ultimately undermines the film's dramatic tension and leaves the audience feeling more amused than scared. On the plus side, the film's production values are top-notch. The costumes and sets are authentic, and the cinematography captures the beauty of the Mississippi River. However, these elements are not enough to elevate the film above mediocrity. Overall, Tom and Huck is a forgettable adaptation of a beloved classic. While the child actors deliver decent performances, the film's flaws outweigh its merits.