Tom Sawyer & Huckleberry Finn

maybe, it is not the most inspired adaptation. but it is nice, seductive, cool and funny. and after so many adaptation, front to high expectations, it has the great virtue to be good occasion to remind the atmosphere of a classic. only sin - Val Kilmer as Mark Twain. too much make-up and a too strange performance. but that is only a small detail. an easy film who has the flavor of classic novel. and that is enough for good entertainment. inspired option for the lead characters for the image level, decent performances, beautiful images. and a film not for high expectations but for fun. version for a new generation, it preserves the spirit of original work. and that fact is real important. the others - only few details.

The positives: 1. Another fine performance from the boy who plays in Super 8. 2. Great soundtrack. Really. It doesn't seem to fit this film. The negatives: 1. Poor screenplay. Dialogue tries to be faithful to time period but comes off very odd and wooden/ artificial. 2. Poor casting. Outside of the main character of Tom, every other actor seems destined to play in B movies. 3. Poor editing. No doubt due to (1) above, but the editing was choppy, in large part due to a choppy storyline / script. 4. Poorly synced voice overs (see #5). 5. Poor casting. The teacher has a jarringly odd, non-Midwestern accent (German?) which simply pulls the viewer out of the movie. Becky is a fine actress but is just not well cast to this Tom. The judge clearly never voices a single line; everything is (poorly) dubbed for this Bulgarian actor. 6. Dialogue tried to be faithful to the time period but failed. Toward the end, I believe Tom even says "fudge" for "fu--." Dialogue /scripting was just very artificial. 7. Storyline was methodical but never natural. Things "happened." But it never flowed. 8. Some scenes of the Mississippi were shot on 16 mm (or poorer quality film stock) and inserted into the movie, but they don't integrate well. 9. Narratives of Mark Twain (Val Kilmer) interrupt the story, and, while they introduce a novel concept to the storyline, simply feel odd/off to story progression. In short, this really felt like a C movie (not even a B movie) in caliber, due to uneven production value.

The acting here is really awful and the cast is so bad I was expecting a white guy in black face to play Jim. This would have been a nightmare to work on, as the production quality is fair, but every day watching the daily's your face would hurt from "Face Palm". This movie should NOT have been made! Fern Champion & Marianne Stanicheva the people credited with casting, should NEVER work again!

Oh gosh, it can't get worse than that. I wanted to show this movie to my son after reading with him the book, it was supposed to be a treat for us. How disappointing, I can't express enough. Why are the boys played by grown up lads, whose eyes can't merely express a joy of 12/13 years olds? The Heg couldn't smile through the whole movie, was it painful for him to play in it? Such poor production, I am actually shocked. I went to google to see if anyone thinks the same or there's something wrong with me? How frustrating to pay money for watching that. Such primitive depiction of a wonderful world of Mark Twain.

Garbage trash. Why remake this? The one with the kid from home improvement is so much better. I was shocked at how bad the cinematography is, from the cinematographer that made 300: rise of an empire and spectre?!?!? I guess it must be a cheap budget, poor pre production and horrible directing. This movie even makes a good cinematographer look bad. I mean wow. Also, why hire cal Kilmer and then cover him in cheap makeup and have him disguise his voice or possibly have a different voice over actor overlay his voice over val's?? Wouldn't even have guessed in a million years that is was Kilmer if I hadn't seen his name in the credits. Good grief how does a movie like this get funded? Go find some good stuff, like my movies.